Somalia's Council of Islamic Courts was, in part, started and run by a man by the name of Hassan Dahir Aweys, and perhaps still is - I'm not sure if he's still around. Anyway, I was thinking: OK we have this relatively poor country with a bunch tribes all fighting one another. Hassan Dahir Aweys professes that God has called on him to act as His messenger and over time he gathers a crew of people who believe him and off they go to fight against the established rulers, per-usual. The more battles he wins the more people flock to him. Soon all of Somalia is in his hands.

To the uneducated goat and camel herdsmen He clearly must be the true Messenger of God.

Why else would he be winning? Duh…

Now, at this point in this story Hassan Dahir Aweys gets bitch slapped by Ethiopian forces and thus fads into the pages of history. Yet, let’s suppose that things had taken a different route and he instead conquered Ethiopia. Then he sets about ruling his new domain under the authority that he is God’s messenger. Now, historically this isn’t all that uncommon and why I brought it up. For example: Alexander of Macedonia, Julius Caesar, The Pharos of Egypt, all of the Kings of Europe, Mohammed in Saudi Arabia, etc…. have acted somewhat as such.

Doesn’t it seem a little moronic to worship these guys or revere them as messengers of God?

Why do it?

- The Pharaohs were worshipped as Gods for 5 millennia! Longer than anyone else.

- Alexander was worshipped for 1100 years by people dwelling in the deserts of the Middle East and is even a character in the Quran – oddly enough he is considered a Muslim even through he claimed to be the God Amun… weird huh?

- Julius Caesar was worshipped as a God after his death, promulgated by Augustus, and whose position as the Pontifex Maximus (high priest of the College of Pontiffs) is surely a forerunner of Catholicism?

- The Kings in Europe all maintained they were God’s representatives – and thus they got the perks that the small folk weren’t entitled to.

- Mohammed conquered a few insignificant tribes in the deserts of the Arabian peninsula. Sometime after his death (no one knows when or by whom exactly) through one means or another much of the “Torah” was rewritten into Syriac and became called the “Qur’an” – about 70% in total I was told. Nevertheless, Mohammed is still worshipped as a true Messenger of God even today.



Would anyone here worship Hassan Dahir Aweys as a messenger of God? The Pharos? Alexander? Julius? I should hope not. Yet many so, worship/revere Mohammed as a messenger of God. Doesn’t it strike you to be just as odd? Now I’m not being derogatory – but it seems odd. If its not as odd - why not? Because to me, I see no major difference - other than time frame. I can forgive peoples of 7000 years ago – as they were uneducated goat and camel herdsmen and frankly life was what they were told it was. Him Pharaoh... He God ... you Worship ... we get fertile ground.... we eat, shit, fuck, sleep – done.

Yet – the educated people of today!?! 2007. That’s unthinkable. It’s equally as unthinkable, to me, to revere Hassan Dahir Aweys as it would be to revere any other warlord – yet many do likewise for Mohammed (well and Bush I should note – which is even odder as he’s a loser!).


Different perspective:
It’s the year 3000.
Hassan Dahir Aweys had captured Ethiopia and Kenya. He sat down and rewrote the Qur’an into a new book called The BlaBla :) fixing those things that had sidetracked from the original teachings of God and weren’t written by whomever whenever into the Qur’an correctly - so he had to fix them. Gods Messengers have this prerogative by the way. Heck - they have to if they want to stay in charge. No point keeping things the same, someone can challenge you for power - no no you must rewrite stuff. Because only you can hear God in your head. Therefore no one can challenge you. Anyway, on the back of his success his followers, over the next few hundred years conquer Africa. In the year 3450Billions of people revere Hassan Dahir Aweys as the Last true Messenger of God….


Wow it just blows my mind,

Michael

Anyway, I was thinking...

Wow!:eek:

Everyone thinks their guy is the best, and if they are religious, they will think their leaders are expressions of that religion. If you already believe there was one messenger of God, two or more isn't that much of a stretch.

Maybe I am not getting this point across well enough.

- There is a clear Historic trend to worship people who do well in battle.
- Politically savvy Generals always maintain to have the backing of God (Bush or the Ayatollahs are typical examples).
- Always Always Always in antiquity it was imperative to be blessed by God to be a successful General.
- Now, IMHO, it seems unreasonable to worship Hassan Dahir Aweys as a true Messenger of God – perhaps because of timeframe but also because he’s a loser and no one reveres a loser. Which is why I set up an alternative history. To try and see things from purely hypothetical angle.


- OK, so, in the case of Mohammed, if we are purely looking at his role as a historical figure - He simply united a very small area of land of relatively insignificant small tribes. Agreed? Not only this they shared a common culture so the job was not all that difficult - strategically. I think most can agree, relative to Alexander or Genghis Khan, militarily, this was a pretty small feat. Yet – his immediate successor did annihilate Persia and establish the rules and book of a new religion.


Assuming the Mohammed is no more a messenger than our fictional version of Hassan Dahir Aweys is – why is it he is revered as a Messenger?

Well, the Pharaohs were for 5000 years, Alexander for 1100, Julius 500+, etc… what is it with us people that we feel this compulsion to act as such? I’m sure if we could travel to the year 3450 and see a Billion Aweysiums worshipping BlaBlaism we would be hard put to say they were anything other than deluded. Yet, we are not able to bring this same rational to our own present beliefs?

Why?

Michael

So why did the Mongols and Turks who conquered Arabia adopt Islam?

Why did the Indians (in 630 AD), the Indonesians and Malaysians?

Eeeeh - Michael ,
I actually think Muhammed covered that option - claiming that he was the last prophet and that the Koran , was the final revelation from God ....
So if Hassan claims he is a messenger from God and writes the Koran into blabla ....then he just might have a problem with the muslim people.......

Oh, I see what you are getting at. If they win, they are worshipped and admired, why are they still so when they lose? Why do people still play slot machines at Vegas after they lose? Why do we still root for sports teams that lose? It's human psychology. We see the good and ignore the negative. We acknowledge when prayer works, but not when it doesn't. We believe in winning streaks and losing streaks.

It can be rationalized as a test of faith.

Oh, I see what you are getting at. If they win, they are worshipped and admired, why are they still so when they lose? Why do people still play slot machines at Vegas after they lose? Why do we still root for sports teams that lose? It's human psychology. We see the good and ignore the negative. We acknowledge when prayer works, but not when it doesn't. We believe in winning streaks and losing streaks.

It can be rationalized as a test of faith.

So whats the difference between Arabs and the Mongols?

Why are both following Muhammed?

I can´t remember everything - but I think the turks were turned into muslims , before they conquered Arabia ......

The mongols showed great interest in christianity - and while they were buddhists Kublai Khan even asked Marco Polo to send christian envoys and missionarys to him so the mongols could change religion - he failed to do so ...
And since they were ready to change religion they ended up changing into islam - there were several muslims at the court of the Khan .....

Assimilation of culture and religion and survival of the best fitted ..... sometimes helped with a knife to your throat ....:m: :rolleyes:

I can´t remember everything - but I think the turks were turned into muslims , before they conquered Arabia ......

The mongols showed great interest in christianity - and while they were buddhists Kublai Khan even asked Marco Polo to send christian envoys and missionarys to him so the mongols could change religion - he failed to do so ...
And since they were ready to change religion they ended up changing into islam - there were several muslims at the court of the Khan .....

Assimilation of culture and religion and survival of the best fitted ..... sometimes helped with a knife to your throat ....:m: :rolleyes:

So the Mongols embraced Islam because all of them were tired of being Buddhists? They conquered from Central Asia to Arabia (as pseudo Buddhists who were Christian wannabes), and embraced Islam because they wanted a new religious system that gave women the divorce, a share in their wealth and the right to refuse marriage?:p

A system that " from the first denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents" ?

That "condemned practices of the Arabs such as female infanticide, exploitation of the poor, usury, murder, false contracts, fornication, adultery, and theft. [3] He states that Muhammad's "insistence that each person was personally accountable not to tribal customary law but to an overriding divine law shook the very foundations of Arabian society... Muhammad proclaimed a sweeping program of religious and social reform that affected religious belief and practices, business contracts and practices, male-female and family relations.""



Why?

So whats the difference between Arabs and the Mongols?

Why are both following Muhammed?

They happened to pick a team, and they are loyal to it. The real question is why is religion so appealing, and why some religions more than others?

Not all of them - the Khan was - and people allways obeyed the Khan in those days .....

Not all of them - the Khan was - and people allways obeyed the Khan in those days .....

Which Khan?:)

see edit of previous post.

They happened to pick a team, and they are loyal to it. The real question is why is religion so appealing, and why some religions more than others?

So why would the Mongols pick the team of an occupied country?

Where else has this happened?

Various members of the Mongol Court, including Sorghaghtani Beki, were Nestorian Christians. Mongols were originally shamans who pray to the supernatural God they believed existed beyond the sky and look down from the heavens. The Mongols and Genghis Khan maintained a policy of being open to all religions, it was known as particularly sympathetic to Christians (which may have helped contribute to the legend of Prester John). In 1253 the court followed the suggestion of Crusader Kingdoms in Syria and attacked the Muslim capitals of Baghdad and Cairo, dispatching an enormous army commanded by Hulagu Khan. Baghdad was conquered and sacked in 1258, with the city's Christians being spared and the Abbasid caliph killed.

So why did the Mongols and Turks who conquered Arabia adopt Islam?

Why did the Indians (in 630 AD), the Indonesians and Malaysians?I don’t know. I’ll take a guess.

Mongols and Turks never imposed a religious system on the people they conquered. If they had then the present day Turks would most likely be that religion. As they didn’t we can assume that as people settled and married with the local subjugated populous they adopted the local religion. Many Mongols settled in Eastern European – they are Xian. It’s not that surprising – is it?

My guess about India (certianly Northern India - much like Persia) they were conquered by Muslim Armies (much like the New World was by Xians – only on a vastly smaller scale when compared to the wholesale slaughter the Xians achieved). That is usually a good incentive to convert – hence Pakistan. Just look at the new world - almost all Xian. It's no wonder is it???

Also, remember that being a Muslim conveys a lot of special privileges and so in a time where it’s hard to eat - any edge will be taken. I’d be Muslim too if I thought it’d get me an extra loaf of bread now and again. Remember how Xian weren’t allowed to convert to Islam – to maintain the tax base. Obvioulsy many Xians wanted to convert just for tax relief! So there are many reasons huh?

I think, but really have no idea, that Indonesia and Malaysia converted much the same way that Fijians converted to Mormonism.
Missionaries with a good story to sell,
Missionaries with sweet Trade deals to be made,
Missionaries from exotic places with exotic stuff etc…
Missionaries with the power to raise a peasant up out of the mud….
LET ME IN ON SUM DAT!!! hehehe… you get the point though.
Indonesia and Malaysia are on an Arabian trade route to China. Even Vietnam had a little Muslim trade community. But Chinese never really thought much of Islam so it kind of didn’t make inroads from there. They did maintain a couple nice Mosques in Bejing for Trade purposes. But hardly any Chinese converted – Chinese were rich, had a much longer history, and where culturally well defined. Indonesian and Malay were hardly so.

Another good question may be: With 1400 year of contact with Islam, if the message is so compelling, why didn’t Chinese convert? Now ask why would Indians, who were equal to the Chinese culturally and historically; why did Indians with such rich traditions and set religions convert?? Why?

What was the major difference b/w India and China? Perhaps the only answer is the wars?

All that aside, you know, I see many people “converting” to Scientology - - all the time in front of Town Hall – where they maintain a stand a times. Why I have no idea.


So yes there are many reasons why people convert to into Islam, out of Islam, into Baha’i out of Baha’i, into Scientology etc… which may have nothing to do with Warlords.

So,
Do we agree that in antiquity many War Generals, by necessity, maintained they and they alone had the blessing of God(s)?


My question is: Why do you suppose that today in the year 2007 so many people continue revere the Arabian General Mohammed (I’m thinking purely as a Historical figure – which is why I said General) as having been in touch with God when clearly most rational people would never do likewise with a modern day General?

Or would they?

Michael

I don’t know. I’ll take a guess.

Mongols and Turks never imposed a religious system on the people they conquered. If they had then the present day Turks would most likely be that religion. As they didn’t we can assume that as people settled and married with the local subjugated populous they adopted the local religion. Many Mongols settled in Eastern European – they are Xian. It’s not that surprising – is it?

My guess about India (certianly Northern India - much like Persia) they were conquered by Muslim Armies (much like the New World was by Xians – only on a vastly smaller scale when compared to the wholesale slaughter the Xians achieved). That is usually a good incentive to convert – hence Pakistan. Just look at the new world - almost all Xian. It's no wonder is it???

Also, remember that being a Muslim conveys a lot of special privileges and so in a time where it’s hard to eat - any edge will be taken. I’d be Muslim too if I thought it’d get me an extra loaf of bread now and again. Remember how Xian weren’t allowed to convert to Islam – to maintain the tax base many wanted to just for tax relief. So there are many reasons huh?

I think, but really have no idea, that Indonesia and Malaysia converted much the same way that Fijians converted to Mormonism.
Missionaries with a good story to sell,
Missionaries with sweet Trade deals to be made,
Missionaries from exotic places with exotic stuff etc…
Missionaries with the power to raise a peasant up out of the mud….
LET ME IN ON SUM DAT!!! hehehe… you get the point though.
Indonesia and Malaysia are on an Arabian trade route to China. Even Vietnam had a little Muslim trade community. But Chinese never really thought much of Islam so it kind of didn’t make inroads from there. They did maintain a couple nice Mosques in Bejing for Trade purposes. But hardly any Chinese converted – Chinese were rich, had a much longer history, and where culturally well defined. Indonesian and Malay were hardly so.

Another good question may be: With 1400 year of contact with Islam, if the message is so compelling, why didn’t Chinese convert? Now ask why would Indians, who were equal to the Chinese culturally and historically convert.

What was the major difference? Perhaps the only answer is the wars?

All that aside, you know, I see many people “converting” to Scientology - - all the time in front of Town Hall – where they maintain a stand a times. Why I have no idea.


So yes there are many reasons why people convert to into Islam, out of Islam, into Baha’i out of Baha’i, into Scientology etc… which may have nothing to do with Warlords.

So,
Do we agree that in antiquity many War Generals, by necessity, maintained they and they alone had the blessing of God(s)?


My question is: Why do you suppose that today in the year 2007 so many people continue revere the Arabian General Mohammed (I’m thinking purely as a Historical figure – which is why I said General) as having been in touch with God when clearly most rational people would never do likewise with a modern day General?

Or would they?

Michael


India: The invasions by Persians and Mongols were fought against Muslim kings from India (local Pashtuns of no royal background and descendents of Arab traders) India already had Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet.

And yet India is largely Hindu, especially in the regions where there were Mughal (or Mongol) kings. So why didn't Indians adopt Islam to the same extent. WHy did some Indians adopt it in the lifetime of the Prophet but hardly any during Mughal rule? And if India did not adopt it why did Indonesia and Malaysia?

Also, in all these places was Mohammed accepted as a Prophet because he was a General?

Was he "seen" as a Military Commander? Is that how he is remembered today? As a military commander?

Islam in China:

has a rich heritage in China. The religion has had a presence in the country since the Tang Dynasty when a companion of Muhammad, Sa`ad ibn Abi Waqqas, was sent as an official envoy to Emperor Gaozong in 650 CE. The Emperor drew parallels between the religion and the teachings of Confucius and ordered the establishment of the first mosque in China.[3]

A notable feature of the Muslim communities in China is the presence of female imams [4]. A form of Islamic calligraphy, the Sini, is well established in China. Hajji Noor Deen Mi Guangjiang is a famous modern calligrapher in this tradition.

The various censuses asserted that there may be up to 20 million Muslims in China.[3]

According to the 2000 census, the largest of the ten traditionally Muslim ethnic groups in China are the Hui (9.8 million in year 2000 census, or 48% of the officially tabulated number of Muslims). The other nine, in descending order of size, are Uyghurs (8.4 million, 41%), Kazakhs (1.25 million , 6.1%), Dongxiang (514 thousand, 2.5%), Kirghiz (161 thousand), Salar (105 thousand), Tajiks (41 thousand), Bonan (17 thousand), Uzbek (12 thousand), and Tatar (5 thousand). However, individual members of traditionally Muslim ethnic groups may profess other religions or none at all, while Muslim believers may also be found among traditionally non-Muslim groups (one example being the Kache, who are ethnically Tibetan). Xinjiang has the largest number of Muslims; many are also concentrated in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.

So whats the difference between Arabs and the Mongols?

Why are both following Muhammed?

As usual, you're full of shit, you muslim chauvinist cunt.

The mongols at the time of Genghis had a shamanistic religion. His descendants contracted the memes of the the tribes they conquered and became christian, muslim and buddhist, etc. The mongols in Mongolia still retain their original shamanism though large numbers are now being converted to protestant christianity by american missionaries.

As usual, you're full of shit, you muslim chauvinist cunt.

The mongols at the time of Genghis had a shamanistic religion. His descendants contracted the memes of the the tribes they conquered and became christian, muslim and buddhist, etc. The mongols in Mongolia still retain their original shamanism though large numbers are now being converted to protestant christianity by american missionaries.

Yes I know that (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1267068&postcount=14). I'm speaking of those who went to Arabia and conquered it.

Nice language btw, very classy and clearly reflective of the objectivity and rationality of your thought processes.:p

PS memes are a fantasy. But why would his descendants contract the meme of a people they overpowered?

Islam in China:

Islam is largely practiced among the turkic tribes in north-western China, who have more in common with central asians.

It was never popular among Han Chinese.

Which Khan?:)



Kublai Khan (1215-1294) - the last "Great Khan" of Mongolia ,who upheld "pax mongolia" in all the mongolian areas - after he died in 1294 there was no more control over the different subareas of Mongolia, actually some problems started while he was still alive - and in 1292 the Khan Ghazan of the Ilkhanate mongol region converted into Islam ( Ghazan had a christian mother and used to be a buddhist before he converted) .... islam later spread on.....

When Marco Polo visited Kublai Khan - the khan asked him for 100 christian missionaries so Mongolia could be converted into christianity .....

http://www.ywameurope.org/news/word/readWord.asp?word=57

http://www.greatitalians.com/MarcoPolo.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/islamisation

Islam is largely practiced among the turkic tribes in north-western China, who have more in common with central asians.

It was never popular among Han Chinese.

And this is relevant because?

Kublai Khan (1215-1294) - the last "Great Khan" of Mongolia ,who upheld "pax mongolia" in all the mongolian areas - after he died in 1294 there was no more control over the different subareas of Mongolia, actually some problems started while he was still alive - and in 1295 the Khan Ghazan of the Ilkhanate mongol region converted into Islam ( Mahmud had a christian mother and used to be a buddhist before he converted) .... islam later spread on.....

When Marco Polo visited Kublai Khan - the khan asked him for 100 christian missionaries so Mongolia could be converted into christianity .....

http://www.ywameurope.org/news/word/readWord.asp?word=57

http://www.greatitalians.com/MarcoPolo.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/islamisation

So why are there non-Muslim Mongols outside Arabia (in fact in their countries of origin)? And hardly any in Arabia, which they conquered?

And why did the Mughal rule of 800 years not result in conversion of the Indians to Islam? Even though it was a conquered territory? And why didn't Mughals in India adopt Hinduism over the 800 years?

India: The invasions by Persians and Mongols were fought against Muslim kings from India (local Pashtuns of no royal background and descendents of Arab traders) India already had Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet. This almost certainly would have been to secure trade ties between the two peoples. No one is going to lose out on trade to one’s neighboring competitors simply because of a new religion. If so then they wouldn’t be ruling because history would have seen them off long before.

The only other alternative answer is that there is something particularly insightful about Islam that would ensure many Indian conversions. Well, sure, maybe to Indonesians and Malay - but come on – India is the birth of religion! It is the oldest – pretty much all religious stories in the region go back to India (with the exception to some Egyptian). India had colonies in Arabia. India was the more advanced in that regards – probably in the world.

Making a few corrections to the Torah, itself a copy of stories leading right back to India, wouldn’t really be all that impressive – would it? Not to mention that Buddhism was a millennial old mature religion which had, by that time, soaked in the thinking of the best that Greek Philosophy had to offer.

Is there any other logical answer than trade ties?
If so I don’t see it.
What would it be?

And yet India is largely Hindu, especially in the regions where there were Mughal (or Mongol) kings. So why didn't Indians adopt Islam to the same extent. WHy did some Indians adopt it in the lifetime of the Prophet but hardly any during Mughal rule? And if India did not adopt it why did Indonesia and Malaysia? Perhaps I’m wrong but India was eventually conquered. Wasn’t it? It'd probably pissed people right off that this new religion, no superior to their own way of thinking, was being promulgated over that of their own indigenous belief! Until Indians were completely conquered it would probably forever remain divisive in this regard.

As to Indonesia and Malaysia - they were hardly India’s equal in terms of cultural historical or religious significance. Islam very may well have been superior to their own stories?

Regardless, all in all, there were probably a lot more converts post-Mohammed but pre-invasion than during the life of Mohammed. As the religion established itself and it became clear that such was necessary to retain good trade relations.

Also, in all these places was Mohammed accepted as a Prophet because he was a General?

Was he "seen" as a Military Commander? Is that how he is remembered today? As a military commander?During his lifetime probably both. I believe Aleaxander had some thoughts he was truly of the Gods. Maybe not. Mahammed seemed to. But he didn't write down he thoughts and the Qur'ans exact date of birth is unknown, as to exactly each member who wrote it - so it's hard so say. Anyway, postmortem I think people are no longer remembered as The General. Even General Mao was remembered, until recently, as more like a Dear Father. Never mind he wiped out 30 million people. My Chinese buddy said he and his family, who were interned for being PhDs in CHM used to pray to Mao before each meal… weird.

So no he would not have been remembered as a General. More as a Father figure and leader. That is the way it usually goes anyway.


Islam in China:I like that China made it so that women are leaders in the Islamic faith. Ironically that’s a direct effect of Communism and a secondary halo effect of Xians influence on Chinese thinking. At least Xians did one thing well anyway.

That said, 20 million people after 1400 years is really a pittance. Isn’t it? I think it’s fair to say Islamic philosophy never really took hold in China. Now the real question is why in India and not in China?

Also, if Islam is superior to Eastern thought – how so? What ideas or notions are philosophically or intellectually superior? People need to hear something and think on it. What are those something’s? I can tell you “The is one God and Mohammed is his Prophet” is not going to cut the mustard on this front!


Interesting questions though . . . . . huh?

Michael

So why are there non-Muslim Mongols outside Arabia (in fact in their countries of origin)?


Ghazan only ruled over the Ilkhanate region - he was not "Great Khan" and could not spread islam in the whole of Mongolia ...only in the Ilkhanate region (Persia) ...

And why did the Mughal rule of 800 years not result in conversion of the Indians to Islam?

The grand moghul of northern India was a muslim - some indians in the north were converted , but many resisted .....there are still hindues there ...
The strenght of the Mughal never extended to the south of India ....

And why didn't Mughals in India adopt Hinduism over the 800 years?

Oh you know , Sam ...
If you convert away from Islam other muslims will kill you ....so they didn´t dare .....:p

Ghazan only ruled over the Ilkhanate region - he was not "Great Khan" and could not spread islam in the whole of Mongolia ...only in the Ilkhanate region (Persia) ...

So the Mongols spread Islam in Persia?:)

The grand moghul of northern India was a muslim - some indians in the north were converted , but many resisted .....there are still hindues there ...
The strenght of the Mughal never extended to the south of India ....

Most of North India (almost all of it save for pockets in Delhi, Lucknow, Ajmer) is Hindu.

South India has more Muslims.:)

Oh you know , Sam ...
If you convert away from Islam other muslims will kill you ....so they didn´t dare .....:p

Really?:)

The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."

Yes , I think you should read the "islamisation" link in my previous post ....:)

This is also good : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal

:m: :p

Really?:)

I was actually joking , Sam ...:)
Except sometimes fanatic muslims have been known to say that ....

Yes , I think you should read the "islamisation" link in my previous post ....:)

This is also good : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal

:m: :p

Sorry could you quote which post you are answering?

embraced Islam because they wanted a new religious system that gave women the divorce, a share in their wealth and the right to refuse marriage? Sarcasm to Sputnik noted, the idea that woman had such rights is not new. Mohammed’s own wife, pre-Islam was (or so I thought) – a very powerful Arab woman? It doesn’t really jive with the notion that Arabs killed their females relatives and women were treated like shit. I’ve always wondered if that wasn’t a bit of propaganda and frankly still think so.

Anyway, a Roman woman who was not remarried could own property and basically was free to do as she liked in Roma. Probably, at the time, these were some of the most free women on the planet Earth.

Regardless, did women ever get these rights in a typical Islamic country? What of the year 2000? That, to me, is the measure.

As Islamic women did not get these rights – what does that say to you about the system of Islam?


[also not Mohammed taking umpteen wife’s and one we would today consider a child – certainly didn’t set a good precedence. I mean the age of consent in Rome was 18 and one could legally have one wife]

A system that " from the first denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents" Again, the Greeks, and Romans after them, removed their aristocratic rulers of heredity and formed a Democracy and a Republic.

And again, while the Greeks and Romans went about business for hundreds of years as such, did Islamic countries ever implement these freedoms?

If not what does that mean to you? What does it imply about Islam?

That "condemned practices of the Arabs such as female infanticide, exploitation of the poor, usury, murder, false contracts, fornication, adultery, and theft. [3] He states that Muhammad's "insistence that each person was personally accountable not to tribal customary law but to an overriding divine law shook the very foundations of Arabian society... Muhammad proclaimed a sweeping program of religious and social reform that affected religious belief and practices, business contracts and practices, male-female and family relations."" Perhaps this had an effect on Arab society – but outside of these nomadic peoples, well, frankly the world was a different place – one full of rules of law and tradition. Greeks and Romans could Democratically change the Law.


Regardless, we must agree that these Ideals didn’t work in Islamic countries. The Islamic system you talk about, if it ever even worked at all, broke down immediately.


Even today, compare Singapore with Malaysia and Indonesia.
Whom are the more free?

I think you would agree in terms of society, The Communism Manifesto (an example I like to use) is much more thought out in terms of social responsibility when compared to Islam societal rules.
It was VERY fair. There is no room for Slavery or multiple wives or even a religious hierarchy.
People are for the betterment of the People.
It didn’t work either.

Do you think Communism is a good system?
Why or Why not?


Michael

PS memes are a fantasy. But why would his descendants contract the meme of a people they overpowered?Well, their more a definiton for ideas that spread. Before the word meme we said idea but that doens't sell many books :)

No really, it is an interesting book. I have it. Anything that allows one to take a crack at something from a different angle is a good thing to explore.

Sorry could you quote which post you are answering?

It was post number 28 .....
First Persia was islamised , but after the mongols conquered it there was a period where muslims were brutally persecuted - then in 1292 Persia was reislamised under the mongols - and it then spread into the middleeast and northern India ............The Mughals had mongol ancestors .....

I was actually joking , Sam ...:)
Except sometimes fanatic muslims have been known to say that ....

The death sentence for apostasy is one of the laws in the 1400 years of Islamic studies by jurists. It is not a part of the religion but a part of the law created by a Muslim jurist (as all laws in Fiqh are) as one of the means of regulating civil society and maintaining local demographic majority. There was no law against migration though so people were always free to leave if they wished to convert.

Plus most of the laws in Muslim jurisprudence are so much hoopla, since

1. there is no single punishment for any crime but a range of possible punishments ranging from most liberal to most conservative

2. there is no compulsion for any Muslim government to follow any of these laws, there are merely legal opinions offered by legal scholars down the ages.

3. Most governments pick and choose laws based on type of government rather than the religion of the people.

Most of North India (almost all of it save for pockets in Delhi, Lucknow, Ajmer) is Hindu.


Yes, they were resiliant - and the muslim Mughal empire is no more ....

It was post number 28 .....
First Persia was islamised , but after the mongols conquered it there was a period where muslims were brutally persecuted - then in 1292 Persia was reislamised ........

Thats interesting, I haven't looked at this stuff in such depth.

Do you know why Persia was re-Islamised? And why most of them are Shiites?

The death sentence for apostasy is one of the laws in the 1400 years of Islamic studies by jurists. It is not a part of the religion but a part of the law created by a Muslim jurist (as all laws in Fiqh are) as one of the means of regulating civil society and maintaining local demographic majority. There was no law against migration though so people were always free to leave if they wished to convert.

Plus most of the laws in Muslim jurisprudence are so much hoopla, since

1. there is no single punishment for any crime but a range of possible punishments ranging from most liberal to most conservative

2. there is no compulsion for any Muslim government to follow any of these laws, there are merely legal opinions offered by legal scholars down the ages.

3. Most governments pick and choose laws based on type of government rather than the religion of the people.


I am glad that it is not in the religion .......:)

Yes, they were resiliant - and the muslim Mughal empire is no more ....

Thats nothing to do with the Indians and everything to do with the British.;)

Thats nothing to do with the Indians and everything to do with the British.;)


I meant resiliant in hindu faith during the Mughals ......
Actually the british did not conquer the Mughals - it was the hindu armies of the Marathas that weakened them .... then armies from Afghanistan and Persia came and finished them off ...

Sarcasm to Sputnik noted, the idea that woman had such rights is not new. Mohammed’s own wife, pre-Islam was (or so I thought) – a very powerful Arab woman? It doesn’t really jive with the notion that Arabs killed their females relatives and women were treated like shit. I’ve always wondered if that wasn’t a bit of propaganda and frankly still think so.

Anyway, a Roman woman who was not remarried could own property and basically was free to do as she liked in Roma. Probably, at the time, these were some of the most free women on the planet Earth.

So why did the Romans not succeed in spreading these ideas?
After all their gods were numerous and more attractive and their system similar to the one promoted by Mohammed.


Regardless, did women ever get these rights in a typical Islamic country? What of the year 2000? That, to me, is the measure.

As Islamic women did not get these rights – what does that say to you about the system of Islam?


[also not Mohammed taking umpteen wife’s and one we would today consider a child – certainly didn’t set a good precedence. I mean the age of consent in Rome was 18 and one could legally have one wife]

Again, the Greeks, and Romans after them, removed their aristocratic rulers of heredity and formed a Democracy and a Republic.

And again, while the Greeks and Romans went about business for hundreds of years as such, did Islamic countries ever implement these freedoms?

If not what does that mean to you? What does it imply about Islam?

Based on all that you say, I think the strength of a society can be seen by its persistence and popularity, .

So what does that tell you about Islam?:)


Even today, compare Singapore with Malaysia and Indonesia.
Whom are the more free?


By whose standards?

I think you would agree in terms of society, The Communism Manifesto (an example I like to use) is much more thought out in terms of social responsibility when compared to Islam societal rules.
It was VERY fair. There is no room for Slavery or multiple wives or even a religious hierarchy.
People are for the betterment of the People.
It didn’t work either.

Do you think Communism is a good system?
Why or Why not?


It was popular but does not seem to have persisted as desired, so it was practically unfeasible? Plus, it was systematically opposed by capitalist countries who used force to undermine it and ensure its failure.

I meant resiliant in hindu faith during the Mughals ......
Actually the british did not conquer the Mughals - it was the hindu armies of the Marathas that weakened them .... then armies from Afghanistan and Persia came and finished them off ...


It was not just resilience. Muslim laws give all taxes to the poor while non-Muslims pay tax to the government. It was politically expedient for the Mughals to keep the population as non-Muslim.

I believe it was Aurangzebs intolerance that did it.

Indians have always tolerated everything but intolerance. And it was not just Hindus who fought him, it was also Muslims: the Pathans and the Sultans.


Aurangzeb was involved in a series of protracted wars: against the Pathans in Afghanistan, the sultans of Bijapur and Golkonda in the Deccan, the Marathas in Maharashtra and the Ahoms in Assam. Peasant uprisings and revolts by local leaders became all too common, as did the conniving of the nobles to preserve their own status at the expense of a steadily weakening empire.

Do you know why Persia was re-Islamised? And why most of them are Shiites?

Yep , Ghazan converted into sunni in 1292 and started to persecute non-muslims very brutally ... he however allowed the shiites to be there , since they were muslims .....
The first islamisation of Persia was shiite ......there were still many left when Ghazan converted , and they became numerous and dominant (again) .....

Yep , Ghazan converted into sunni in 1292 and started to persecute non-muslims very brutally ... he however allowed the shiites to be there , since they were muslims .....
The first islamisation of Persia was shiite ......there were still many left when Ghazan converted , and they became numerous and dominant (again) .....

Interesting how one man can determine the destiny of a nation.

In old days - if a mongol Khan said something you obeyed .... or died ....or at least were heavily persecuted ...
No sense of humour ......:p :m:

Have to go sleep now - see you ...

In old days - if a mongol Khan said something you obeyed .... or died ....
No sense of humour ......:p :m:

I believe they were remarkably tolerant for their times, though our standards for tolerance have changed somewhat. Though incidents like Abu Ghraib make me wonder.

Is it telling that you make your first refernece to Abu Ghraib and not the atrocities of terrorists?

Is it telling that you make your first refernece to Abu Ghraib and not the atrocities of terrorists?

You mean I should not have higher standards for a country that stands for truth, liberty and justice and offers the best in education, wealth and standard of living as compared to a closed community with little exposure to modernisation?

You tell me.

Considering we're the ones witnessing the savagery of the terrorists, you'd think you'd understand that a minority of our troops may want to go a little bit nuts when punishing them, specifically when innocent women and children are on the line.

Considering we're the ones witnessing the savagery of the terrorists, you'd think you'd understand that a minority of our troops may want to go a little bit nuts when punishing them, specifically when innocent women and children are on the line.

Interesting then, that is the same line of reasoning used by the terrorists:


The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm

So why did the Romans not succeed in spreading these ideas?
Romanization occurred all over the ancient world!
As to the Gods – people back then were much more civilized in respect to the Gods, that was pre-monotheism. The Civilized world had Gnostic Religions mostly based around Greek Philosophy. The Outer Mysteries were a dumbed down version and were fed to the simple minded masses (these stories form the basis of modern-day Xianity as well as Islam – historically this is true). The inner Mysteries were kept a secret – so they were not ever going to be shared with non-initiates.

As to the spread of culture – Sam Sam Sam …. Hellenization???

Back to Roman Gods, there were three kinds of ways of thinking about this:
1) Gods they incorporated from Greece (Why would Rome spread Greek Gods?)
2) The old Roman Gods (personal to Roma)
3) The Holy Roman Empire: Based on the outer mysteries - the largest religion in the World.

After all their gods were numerous and more attractive and their system similar to the one promoted by Mohammed. Samantha Dearest :)

By the time of Mohammed the old Gods were usurped by the Catholic based Holy Roman/Greek/Byzantine Empire. Mohammed and hence whomever wrote the Qur’an, were directly influenced by the Roman/Greek Xian Religion. It’s mostly a rewrite of the Torah and Bible (I was told 70% similar).
You would agreed wouldn’t you?
Unless there is something really novel in there you want to tell me about I will be forced to suppose that there isn’t. Well other than “There is one god and Mohammed is his messenger”. While novel in using the name “Mohammed” it’s really not all that novel nor all that edifying!!!

Is there something else that is novel or enlightening you’re hold back on me!?!
:)
Based on all that you say, I think the strength of a society can be seen by its persistence and popularity, The strength of a society is to evolve. Rome and Greece, with their Democracies were able to do this. Unfortunately they fell to the temptation of Hereditary rule and then monotheism on top of that and fell - a fell far. We call it the Dark Ages

So what does that tell you about Islam?:) It tells us that almost immediately after it’s inception – Islamic systems fell back onto the tried and true form of hereditary government. 7000 years old - not new at all.

In a sense, other than a different religion, of which there are many different Islamic Religions in the Islamic world (similar to Xianity) there was no change over the way things were ran for millenia. So sure another 1000 year on top of 7000 of the same old same old - well, not surprizing.

Was there a big difference in the lives of people pre-Islam or post-Islam? History certainly doesn’t seem to suggest so. Even running water, something the Romans mastered 2200 years ago, was just put in Saudi Arabia AFTER America landed a person on the Moon - By Americans!

If there is something Historically intriguing about Islam then I’d love to hear of it – but I don’t really see a major difference for the peoples lives after Islam was introduced. It seems pretty like a Hereditary government - as it was and still is to this day. Instead of a Pharoah there was a Caliph.

Did I miss something?

By whose standards?.I’m asking you. compare Singapore with Malaysia and Indonesia. Whom are the more free and how so?

It was popular but does not seem to have persisted as desired, so it was practically unfeasible? Plus, it was systematically opposed by capitalist countries who used force to undermine it and ensure its failure.I wouldn’t blame the Capitalists on China and Russia’s and India’s failure to form viable Communist States. They had more than enough people and resources to do so.

I do agree that it was a hugely popular concept and that it does not seem to have persisted as desired. In that sense, the Islam you talk of seems similar to Communism and the Islam that has persisted seems a pathetic ghost in comparison.

You know, Islamic countries were successful when they were pluralistic, but by fulfilling their own manifest destiny - of becoming ‘pure’ Islamic – they ensure their own stagnation, degradation and sew the seeds of their ultimate destruction. That’s why there are so many poor Islamic countries and why there are so many branches of Islam – the original one didn’t work so they keep trying all these other kinds.
Baha’i comes to mind.

Well that’s how it seems to me anyway,
Michael


I am curious though

1) Is there anything particularly novel and insightful in the Qur’an that has not already been expressed in Hinduism, Buddhism, Xianity, Greek Philosophy, Taoism etc…?

*** Even the pre-Xian doozy that "Jesus et.al." was the God-head incarnate, come to earth for my sins - really leaves me with no better an understanding of this universe and my place in it. Nothing all that enlightening – IMHO. So Islam is going to at least have to match that!

Romanization occurred all over the ancient world!
As to the Gods – people back then were much more civilized in respect to the Gods, that was pre-monotheism. The Civilized world had Gnostic Religions mostly based around Greek Philosophy. The Outer Mysteries were a dumbed down version and were fed to the simple minded masses (these stories form the basis of modern-day Xianity as well as Islam – historically this is true). The inner Mysteries were kept a secret – so they were not ever going to be shared with non-initiates.

As to the spread of culture – Sam Sam Sam …. Hellenization???

Back to Roman Gods, there were three kinds of ways of thinking about this:
1) Gods they incorporated from Greece (Why would Rome spread Greek Gods?)
2) The old Roman Gods (personal to Roma)
3) The Holy Roman Empire: Based on the outer mysteries - the largest religion in the World.

Samantha Dearest :)

By the time of Mohammed the old Gods were usurped by the Catholic based Holy Roman/Greek/Byzantine Empire. Mohammed and hence whomever wrote the Qur’an, were directly influenced by the Roman/Greek Xian Religion. It’s mostly a rewrite of the Torah and Bible (I was told 70% similar).
You would agreed wouldn’t you?
Unless there is something really novel in there you want to tell me about I will be forced to suppose that there isn’t. Well other than “There is one god and Mohammed is his messenger”. While novel in using the name “Mohammed” it’s really not all that novel nor all that edifying!!!

Is there something else that is novel or enlightening you’re hold back on me!?!
:)
The strength of a society is to evolve. Rome and Greece, with their Democracies were able to do this. Unfortunately they fell to the temptation of Hereditary rule and then monotheism on top of that and fell - a fell far. We call it the Dark Ages

It tells us that almost immediately after it’s inception – Islamic systems fell back onto the tried and true form of hereditary government. 7000 years old - not new at all.

In a sense, other than a different religion, of which there are many different Islamic Religions in the Islamic world (similar to Xianity) there was no change over the way things were ran for millenia. So sure another 1000 year on top of 7000 of the same old same old - well, not surprizing.

Was there a big difference in the lives of people pre-Islam or post-Islam? History certainly doesn’t seem to suggest so. Even running water, something the Romans mastered 2200 years ago, was just put in Saudi Arabia AFTER America landed a person on the Moon - By Americans!

If there is something Historically intriguing about Islam then I’d love to hear of it – but I don’t really see a major difference for the peoples lives after Islam was introduced. It seems pretty like a Hereditary government - as it was and still is to this day. Instead of a Pharoah there was a Caliph.

Did I miss something?

I’m asking you. compare Singapore with Malaysia and Indonesia. Whom are the more free and how so?

I wouldn’t blame the Capitalists on China and Russia’s and India’s failure to form viable Communist States. They had more than enough people and resources to do so.

I do agree that it was a hugely popular concept and that it does not seem to have persisted as desired. In that sense, the Islam you talk of seems similar to Communism and the Islam that has persisted seems a pathetic ghost in comparison.

You know, Islamic countries were successful when they were pluralistic, but by fulfilling their own manifest destiny - of becoming ‘pure’ Islamic – they ensure their own stagnation, degradation and sew the seeds of their ultimate destruction. That’s why there are so many poor Islamic countries and why there are so many branches of Islam – the original one didn’t work so they keep trying all these other kinds.
Baha’i comes to mind.

Well that’s how it seems to me anyway,
Michael


I am curious though

1) Is there anything particularly novel and insightful in the Qur’an that has not already been expressed in Hinduism, Buddhism, Xianity, Greek Philosophy, Taoism etc…?

*** Even the pre-Xian doozy that "Jesus et.al." was the God-head incarnate, come to earth for my sins - really leaves me with no better an understanding of this universe and my place in it. Nothing all that enlightening – IMHO. So Islam is going to at least have to match that!

All this!!!

I meant to the Arabs, not in general. Why wasn't the paganism of the Romans more attractive to the pagan Arabs than Islam. I don't know the answer either. :)

Islam is very similar to Judaism, almost the same one might say, except it is
more inclusive. (Not sure about this as I am not overly familiar with the Torah)

As for what is new in Islam? It seems to be relevant to people with vastly different needs and covers a multitude of social systems. It can be followed easily and can be as liberal or as conservative as one desires since there is no hard and fast rule except as determined by consensus. There is also no consensus on the consensus, different schools of thought coexist side by side, allowing for multiple systems within a broad framework. There is no "right" or "wrong" which explains the plurality of Muslim society and thought that coexists in the world. Also there is no "good' or "bad" Muslim - no one is forced to follow any particular practice in any particular way. There are "pillars" of the religion (prayer, fasting, charity, pilgrimage) but these are personal obligations and need not be socially enforced. The only requirement is Tauheed(monotheism) and acceptance of Mohammed as a prophet. Which makes it incredibly simple and flexible as a belief system, constrained by nothing more than social attitudes and form of governance. All the rules in Islam are enforced by the society and government, not by any religious body.

It also provides a sense of structure to personal values which is the primary reason for its endurance. Most people who convert do so for this reason.

All this!!!

I meant to the Arabs, not in general. Why wasn't the paganism of the Romans more attractive to the pagan Arabs than Islam. I don't know the answer either. :) Well really, it seems that the Arabs would stick with their own polytheisms, or maybe modify Greek gods to suit their traditional stories. I can’t see them taking Roman Gods.

I was under the impression that the Arabs were conquered by Mohammed’s army? I mean all of the Americans were converted to Xianity in such manner. So the answer is the attraction came at the bloody end of a sword!


I often wonder if it wasn’t conservative Jews, worried at the Hellenization of Judaism (which was seriously altering the Jewish belief system) didn’t set up tribes in Arabia to maintain their conservative belief. Their way of life probably had a profound impact on Mohammed and as he traveled from Arabia to the Byzantine empire for trade he must seen the major differences in orthodox Jews living in Araba versus their Hellenized cousins. Somehow he got it in his head that the conservative Jews had the right of it and, for whatever reasons, thought he was their prophet and hence he set about righting the Torah. In this sense I sort of see Muslims as conservative Jews. I’ve read that many of the oldest Mosques in Arabia face towards Jerusalem not Mecca. Anyway, they wouldn’t have a bar of that and were annihilated along with the polytheistic Arabs and the Religion seems to then take on more of an Arab twist. In essence I still think of these original Muslims as Jews.

Just something I was thinking of, but you’re right – no one really knows why.

As for what is new in Islam? It seems to be relevant to people with vastly different needs and covers a multitude of social systems. It can be followed easily and can be as liberal or as conservative as one desires since there is no hard and fast rule except as determined by consensus. There is also no consensus on the consensus, different schools of thought coexist side by side, allowing for multiple systems within a broad framework. There is no "right" or "wrong" which explains the plurality of Muslim society and thought that coexists in the world. Also there is no "good' or "bad" Muslim - no one is forced to follow any particular practice in any particular way. There are "pillars" of the religion (prayer, fasting, charity, pilgrimage) but these are personal obligations and need not be socially enforced. The only requirement is Tauheed(monotheism) and acceptance of Mohammed as a prophet. Which makes it incredibly simple and flexible as a belief system, constrained by nothing more than social attitudes and form of governance. All the rules in Islam are enforced by the society and government, not by any religious body. It also provides a sense of structure to personal values which is the primary reason for its endurance. Most people who convert do so for this reason.Not to be brat-like, but there still doesn’t seem to be anything novel. I mean, the overview is nice, but other than the acceptance of Mohammed as a prophet – what is there in there that would convince an Indian with a deep and profound belief system to change their religious views? Especially people that had reached Zen like meditative trance states. It just doesn’t seem “There is one God and Mohammed is his Prophet” is really going to do much to motive they people to convert. And people follow their religious leaders – so I don’t imagine many, if hardly any, changing the belief they were raised in.

It just doesn’t happen – in general. As we can see today.

I would think, religion in India was surely too well advanced for Islam, a monotheism, to spread without some sort of physical or monetary encouragement? Even Buddhism which offers many novel outlooks on life and was very much influenced by Hinduism and would thus be acceptable to many Indians could did not make many gains in India.


Something to think about,
:)
Michael

Even Buddhism which offers many novel outlooks on life and was very much influenced by Hinduism and would thus be acceptable to many Indians could did not make many gains in India.

Actually Buddhism was the dominant religion in India for over a thousand years. :)

And Islam would have been attractive to those Indians who were not allowed mobility in work because they did not fall within the varna for that work (Brahmin=scholar, Kshatriya=warrior, Vaishya=trade Shudra=agriculturists, laborers). With Islam they would be able to work based on merit.

However the social stratification system in India is so old and has such deep roots that even Muslims and Christians have evolved caste structures.

Actually Buddhism was the dominant religion in India for over a thousand years. :) Well Buddhism is an Indian religion after all!

Out of curiosity, are Indian Buddhists, by and large, part of the caste system?

And Islam would have been attractive to those Indians who were not allowed mobility in work because they did not fall within the varna for that work (Brahmin=scholar, Kshatriya=warrior, Vaishya=trade Shudra=agriculturists, laborers). With Islam they would be able to work based on merit. Well, maybe. But, that’s sort of a rosy colored view on the topic. The whole world was full of classes / castes. Everywhere – not just in India. And it still is really. There are men - there are women. There are the religious elite - there are the political elite. In Islam there was a class called Muslim and a class called non-Muslim. There were freemen and there were slaves. There are rulers and there are the ruled.

I think we can assume that there would have been little incentive on the side of class and segregation to motive people to change their religion? If that were the case every rebel leader and their dog would have broke the back of every caste and class system in the world. History suggests that while a Spartacus comes along once in awhile – the changes are usually short lived. (Communism or equality doesn't sit well with people).

And again, you said Mohammed kept POWs as servants, I wonder, did Mohammed bath their feet as the mythical “Jesus” character does in Xianity’s Messiah Allegory?

Anyway, this was a good site: SOUTH ASIAN HISTORY (http://india_resource.tripod.com/islam.html) I like the cut of this person jib :) … they really acknowledge the difficulties for Historians in remaining impartial.

Perhaps no aspect of India's history excites more passion and violent disagreement than the evaluation of Islam's role in the sub-continent. On the one hand, the most extreme advocates of the 2-nation theory see the arrival of Islam as overwhelmingly positive - defending every gory invader or brutal conqueror that reached Indian soil - there are others who see the arrival of Islam as an even more destructive event for the people of the sub-continent than colonial rule. And while it may be impossible to be completely objective and accurate in evaluating Islam's impact in the sub-continent - a large core of historians would probably reject both these views as being ahistoric - as being highly partisan or prejudicial.

Most reasonable historians would probably agree that there is no simple answer to this question. Yet, even well intentioned historians can have their biases. Their assessment of Islam's role in India could depend in large part on their personal priorities and value system. It could also be shaped by the nature and scope of the sources the historian consulted in order to develop his or her point of view. To some extent, the study of the Islamic period in Indian history has suffered because often, historians with an Islamic background have concentrated their efforts almost exclusively on reading about Islamic rulers and stayed with predominantly Islamic sources of reference while conducting their research.

On the other hand, historians with a Hindu background have not always studied the Islamic period in adequate depth. As a result, even while wishing to be objective, they have reinforced theories that are at best only partially accurate. The student of Indian history is then left to grapple with highly contradictory views of Indian history.

This was an interesting comment:

Although as a religious faith, Islam put great stress on the equality of all believers, in most cases, society did not become more egalitarian under Islamic rule. The general bias towards trade, and the trend towards higher taxes on the peasantry led to far greater concentrations of wealth amongst the social elite. Not only did the distance between rich and poor widen with the arrival of the Islamic invaders, Islamic rulers did not contribute in any meaningful way to breaking down the caste system.


So, I suppose, not to beat a dead horse, but other than “… and Mohammed is his Messenger” I still don’t see anything new in Islam that is going to convince a large swath of Hindus to suddenly convert.
Xianity also places a huge amount of emphasis on individuality and personal freedoms. It was Xian protestants under duress of conscious that broke the back of Slave traders - abolishing the legality of the industry once and for all.
Yet we do not see Hindus flocking to become Xians.
Do we?
No.
There were many Xian monasteries on the Arabian peninsula during the life of Mohammed – historically we don’t see a lot of Arabs becoming Xian. Some yes – lots no.
Equality can not be the main answer.


What reasons would convince Indians convert?
- Under the right ruler (ex Muhammad bin Tughlaq ) Indians would indeed convert for the upward mobility and gain in status.
- Under other rulers by the end of a bloody sword
- If one’s province was completely conquered, and the only way to stop being treated as a second class citizen is to convert – expect conversion.
- If one’s Lord converted to gain improved trade relations, many times the populous will covert to curry favor with their Lord.


What do you think?
Why did Indians convert while Chinese did not?

Also,
As a Historical question: Do you see any similarities between Mohammed and a Warlord like Alexander the Great? If so What?


I'm still interested in why people revere Warlords? Is it simply people like a winner?!?!?!

Michael

Hey Sam, do you really think it's good that family members are encouraged to kill any other family member who leaves Islam?

It's fun to watch Sam try to defend the indefensible, here comes somemore.

Hey Sam, do you really think it's good that family members are encouraged to kill any other family member who leaves Islam?I know many people that have been raised in a Xian families, that became Atheist , and will not let anyone know for fear of being seriously ostracized.

Could you imagine if you were in a small country town in the south of the States and went from Xian to Satanist!
You’d be dead in weeks – if not days.

Michael

It is Muslim policy to kill those who leave Islam, how 'bout that?

Well Buddhism is an Indian religion after all!

Out of curiosity, are Indian Buddhists, by and large, part of the caste system?


The fact that there Buddhism has diminished left should tell you something about that. Apparently, egalitarianism and immaterialism does not work so well with capitalism?

Well, maybe. But, that’s sort of a rosy colored view on the topic. The whole world was full of classes / castes. Everywhere – not just in India. And it still is really. There are men - there are women. There are the religious elite - there are the political elite. In Islam there was a class called Muslim and a class called non-Muslim. There were freemen and there were slaves. There are rulers and there are the ruled.

I think we can assume that there would have been little incentive on the side of class and segregation to motive people to change their religion? If that were the case every rebel leader and their dog would have broke the back of every caste and class system in the world. History suggests that while a Spartacus comes along once in awhile – the changes are usually short lived. (Communism or equality doesn't sit well with people).

And again, you said Mohammed kept POWs as servants, I wonder, did Mohammed bath their feet as the mythical “Jesus” character does in Xianity’s Messiah Allegory?

Why would he?:)
But they were allowed to purchase their freedom.

Anyway, this was a good site: SOUTH ASIAN HISTORY (http://india_resource.tripod.com/islam.html) I like the cut of this person jib :) … they really acknowledge the difficulties for Historians in remaining impartial.

Perhaps no aspect of India's history excites more passion and violent disagreement than the evaluation of Islam's role in the sub-continent. On the one hand, the most extreme advocates of the 2-nation theory see the arrival of Islam as overwhelmingly positive - defending every gory invader or brutal conqueror that reached Indian soil - there are others who see the arrival of Islam as an even more destructive event for the people of the sub-continent than colonial rule. And while it may be impossible to be completely objective and accurate in evaluating Islam's impact in the sub-continent - a large core of historians would probably reject both these views as being ahistoric - as being highly partisan or prejudicial.

Most reasonable historians would probably agree that there is no simple answer to this question. Yet, even well intentioned historians can have their biases. Their assessment of Islam's role in India could depend in large part on their personal priorities and value system. It could also be shaped by the nature and scope of the sources the historian consulted in order to develop his or her point of view. To some extent, the study of the Islamic period in Indian history has suffered because often, historians with an Islamic background have concentrated their efforts almost exclusively on reading about Islamic rulers and stayed with predominantly Islamic sources of reference while conducting their research.

On the other hand, historians with a Hindu background have not always studied the Islamic period in adequate depth. As a result, even while wishing to be objective, they have reinforced theories that are at best only partially accurate. The student of Indian history is then left to grapple with highly contradictory views of Indian history.

This was an interesting comment:

Although as a religious faith, Islam put great stress on the equality of all believers, in most cases, society did not become more egalitarian under Islamic rule. The general bias towards trade, and the trend towards higher taxes on the peasantry led to far greater concentrations of wealth amongst the social elite. Not only did the distance between rich and poor widen with the arrival of the Islamic invaders, Islamic rulers did not contribute in any meaningful way to breaking down the caste system.


As to the last, several Dalits converted either to Buddhism or Islam (still do) to escape the tyranny of the elite. And the Islamic rulers were not interested in converting the masses but in having a prosperous economy (with exceptions of fanatics who enforced their beliefs of course).


So, I suppose, not to beat a dead horse, but other than “… and Mohammed is his Messenger” I still don’t see anything new in Islam that is going to convince a large swath of Hindus to suddenly convert.
Xianity also places a huge amount of emphasis on individuality and personal freedoms. It was Xian protestants under duress of conscious that broke the back of Slave traders - abolishing the legality of the industry once and for all.
Yet we do not see Hindus flocking to become Xians.
Do we?
No.
There were many Xian monasteries on the Arabian peninsula during the life of Mohammed – historically we don’t see a lot of Arabs becoming Xian. Some yes – lots no.
Equality can not be the main answer.

All valid points


What reasons would convince Indians convert?
- Under the right ruler (ex Muhammad bin Tughlaq ) Indians would indeed convert for the upward mobility and gain in status.
- Under other rulers by the end of a bloody sword
- If one’s province was completely conquered, and the only way to stop being treated as a second class citizen is to convert – expect conversion.
- If one’s Lord converted to gain improved trade relations, many times the populous will covert to curry favor with their Lord.


That still deos not explain a Muslim majority in places with no Mughals and a Hindu majority in places with.

What do you think?
Why did Indians convert while Chinese did not?


Chinese have historically been more resistant to change in their culture.
Perhaps its a function of acceptance of assimilation of foreign cultures being greater in Indians?

Also,
As a Historical question: Do you see any similarities between Mohammed and a Warlord like Alexander the Great? If so What?


Not really. Do you?

I'm still interested in why people revere Warlords? Is it simply people like a winner?!?!?!

Michael


Perhaps most people are simply followers?:p

It is Muslim policy to kill those who leave Islam, how 'bout that? 'Muslim policy'? Is it written in some book somewhere?

Xian missionaries killed and or converted, destroyed and erased from the pages of history more peoples than Islam could ever hope to ever. China closed itself off due to Xian missionaries. Japan completely sealed itself off over fear of Xian missionaries. Bush rallied Xian troupes and spoke of “Crusades” in the Middle East.
Come on, point a figure at someone and 3 point back at yourself.
The hope of every Xian is that the World be Xian.

Anyway, yes some Muslims do kill their kids if they convert out of Islam. That is a fact and that is sad. I think it’s a product of monotheism and brainwashing but hey – maybe they go to heaven and sit on the lap of the Oh-so-wondrous-Lord and see what pops up? But these people usually live in tribes and are simpletons. Probably their tribe would vanish if they let people convert and leave. Maybe it’s a survival trait?

Surely you know Sam is not like that so why be so taunting?
You’re not a dutiful Xian?
Relative to how the Amish treated the wife of the man who murdered their children - your own actions are … well … kind of pathetic huh??

And this . . . . coming from an Atheist :)

MII

I've been thinking about what you said about what Islam brings that is different to the equation.

If you look at the religion dispassionately, in its entirety, it is the one religion (and I'm biased) that has the potential to grow, rather than diminish. An Islamic theist can find meaning in religion even in modern society without the necessity to reject any part of the faith itself. The rules of Islam have been interpreted to survive the most conservative of societies and can also be interpreted to survive the most liberal. From theocratic to autocratic to communist to democratic, socialist or anarchic, Islam is flexible enough for any system.

Perhaps what I am saying is that it has longterm survival value based on the fact that there has never been a rigidity in its structure.

The fact that there are Buddhism has diminished left should tell you something about that. Apparently, egalitarianism and immaterialism does not work so well with capitalism? True – I still want to get to Zen. But I also want a PS3!

I'm screwed … Oh well, FFXII is coming to AU soon :)

Oh, are Buddhists part of the Caste system? I tried to look but some sites say yeah for some Buddhists some say no … what’s the general trend?

Chinese have historically been more resistant to change in their culture.
Perhaps its a function of acceptance of assimilation of foreign cultures being greater in Indians? China has also never been conquered by Islamists. China is farther away and Islamic countries would have been less important in terms of trade.

Did you know that the Greatest Chinese explorer Cheng Ho was a Muslim?

Why would he? To set a positive precedence.

But they were allowed to purchase their freedom. So could American Slaves. As you know it doesn’t happen often. Anyway, Slavery is sick. Could you imagine if plane loads of Iraqi slaves were being brought back to the Sates to work as Slaves! Maybe a couple clever Iraqi teachers could teach Arabic and buy their freedom in a decade or so…

People would be outraged!

That’s how I feel about this blasé attitude towards Slavery. It’s mind boggling. But, I’m willing to rack it up to brainwashing – you are formally off the hook!
:p

As to the last, several Dalits converted either to Buddhism or Islam (still do) to escape the tyranny of the elite. I can not imagine, if you were under the rule of a Tyrant, that one day you say to yourself HEY I’m converting to XXXX and suddenly you were free from tyranny?!?!?!
Haaa!
If so, I’d say the ruler isn’t really much of a Tyrant!

That still deos not explain a Muslim majority in places with no Mughals and a Hindu majority in places with. Yeah why?

Not really. Do you? 1) They both led armies.
2) They both were considered favored by the/a God/s.
3) They both killed for their belief.
4) They both thought that once the world was under one belief system there would be peace.
5) They both were fathers.
6) They both held slaves.
7) They both had close companions that succeeded them and ruled.
8) They were both autocratic.
9) While implicating rules they both made exceptions for themselves.
10) The were both leaders.
11) The were both rich.

There are some similarities between me and Mohammed and between you and Alexander. It’s a good mental exercise anyway.

Perhaps most people are simply followers?:pSheeple! Agreed!

Michael II

Sam says "Islam is flexible.....," yeh, tell that to those who leave Islam.

True – I still want to get to Zen. But I also want a PS3!

I'm screwed … Oh well, FFXII is coming to AU soon
Oh, are Buddhists part of the Caste system? I tried to look but some sites say yeah for some Buddhists some say no … what’s the general trend?

Are Buddhists part of the caste system?
Depends on the time point in history, I guess. Did they shave their heads, wear a robe and survive on handouts?

Or did they become Buddhists merely to get out of the cycle of casteism?

If the first, they would graduate to monks who are highly regarded by Indians (we still have monks coming to our door and we provide them with meals, it is considered a great privilege and we have been brainwashed into respecting all these free loaders.:p ).

If the second, they may not shed their yokes so easily and may just enter another caste system where they are free to do some things (like follow a career) but not considered as acceptable for marriage.


To set a positive precedence.

Humility is overrated.

So could American Slaves. As you know it doesn’t happen often. Anyway, Slavery is sick. Could you imagine if plane loads of Iraqi slaves were being brought back to the Sates to work as Slaves! Maybe a couple clever Iraqi teachers could teach Arabic and buy their freedom in a decade or so…

People would be outraged!

That’s how I feel about this blasé attitude towards Slavery. It’s mind boggling. But, I’m willing to rack it up to brainwashing – you are formally off the hook!
:p

Perhaps because I recognise that for all our high faluting talk, we've never really abolished slavery, just changed the labels. The illegal immigrants and minimum wagers, the humans that are trafficked for economic and sexual slavery, as well as the exploited Third World. You'd be amazed what people can ignore if it inconveniences them or does not affect them directly.

I can not imagine, if you were under the rule of a Tyrant, that one day you say to yourself HEY I’m converting to XXXX and suddenly you were free from tyranny?!?!?!
Haaa!
If so, I’d say the ruler isn’t really much of a Tyrant!

More like, you're a Shudra so you cannot go to school, but oh you're a Muslim, come join our madrassa.



1) They both led armies.
2) They both were considered favored by the/a God/s.
3) They both killed for their belief.
4) They both thought that once the world was under one belief system there would be peace.
5) They both were fathers.
6) They both held slaves.
7) They both had close companions that succeeded them and ruled.
8) They were both autocratic.
9) While implicating rules they both made exceptions for themselves.
10) The were both leaders.
11) The were both rich.


This is a comparison? You could probably add another 100 million people down the ages.:p


There are some similarities between me and Mohammed and between you and Alexander. It’s a good mental exercise anyway.

Yeah right!

and we have been brainwashed into respecting all these free loaders.:p Hahaahaaa!
Too Funny...
LOL
:D
Michael

First,
OMG I am really procrastinating …shit!

I've been thinking about what you said about what Islam brings that is different to the equation.

If you look at the religion dispassionately, in its entirety, it is the one religion (and I'm biased) that has the potential to grow, rather than diminish. An Islamic theist can find meaning in religion even in modern society without the necessity to reject any part of the faith itself. The rules of Islam have been interpreted to survive the most conservative of societies and can also be interpreted to survive the most liberal. From theocratic to autocratic to communist to democratic, socialist or anarchic, Islam is flexible enough for any system.

Perhaps what I am saying is that it has longterm survival value based on the fact that there has never been a rigidity in its structure.This is why I sometimes think of Islam and Xianity as two peas in a pod.

But, the originality I was thinking of was in terms of novel doctrine. You know, each Philosophical treaty has something novel in its teaching that is supposed to bring a new enlightened approach to the age old questions humanity asks. Why am I here. What is my purpose. What is the purpose of life. Etc…

Is there something novel in Islam that would persuade a religious minded Indian Buddhist or Hindu to contemplate and thus convert?

I think that Buddhism, while very similar to Hinduism, must have offered this. There were no wars, no perks, no taxes and no generals – yet, for a time, even the Greek Philosophers that came to India under the War banner of Alexander converted to Buddhism (which is the Buddhism that traveled to China and Korea and Japan.) Such was the novelty and philosophical approach.

I was looking for something like that,

Michael

First,
OMG I am really procrastinating …shit!

This is why I sometimes think of Islam and Xianity as two peas in a pod.

But, the originality I was thinking of was in terms of novel doctrine. You know, each Philosophical treaty has something novel in its teaching that is supposed to bring a new enlightened approach to the age old questions humanity asks. Why am I here. What is my purpose. What is the purpose of life. Etc…

Is there something novel in Islam that would persuade a religious minded Indian Buddhist or Hindu to contemplate and thus convert?

I think that Buddhism, while very similar to Hinduism, must have offered this. There were no wars, no perks, no taxes and no generals – yet, for a time, even the Greek Philosophers that came to India under the War banner of Alexander converted to Buddhism (which is the Buddhism that traveled to China and Korea and Japan.) Such was the novelty and philosophical approach.

I was looking for something like that,

Michael

I would say ease of practice and ease of moving between paradigms of faith. e.g. Sufism is mystic, Sunnis are practical, Shiites are orthodox, Wahabis are fundamentalists. Something for everybody. And all share a common identity as Muslims (ie no one identifies himself as Sunni or Shia by faith, only by affiliation)

And regardless of inter-tribal warfare (like in Iraq) no real disagreement in the scholars as to rightness or wrongness of belief, ie heterodoxy in belief.

Another attraction I would see is the negation of social hierarchy, ie one may be Sunni or Shia but the importance of the sect is determined by demographic majority within a country (or ability to attract American support, as in Iraq) rather than any official stratification of the belief systems themselves. Plus no king/dictator/pope has absolute rule, not even a Caliph, who were castigated regularly by religious clerics. And no requirement except merit to move between circles of society (anyone with the ability can be king/dictator/caliph).

Of course, Islam degrees theocracy, but why quibble over such a minor detail.

Whups, I should have said decrees theocracy.

Sam says "Islam is flexible.....," yeh, tell that to those who leave Islam.Same things that can be heard of those that leave christianity.

That Christianity says hunt down "believers" who renounce Christianity and kill them, as Islam encourages to those who leave Islam?

I would say ease of practice and ease of moving between paradigms of faith. e.g. Sufism is mystic, Sunnis are practical, Shiites are orthodox, Wahabis are fundamentalists. Something for everybody. And all share a common identity as Muslims (ie no one identifies himself as Sunni or Shia by faith, only by affiliation)

And regardless of inter-tribal warfare (like in Iraq) no real disagreement in the scholars as to rightness or wrongness of belief, ie heterodoxy in belief.

Another attraction I would see is the negation of social hierarchy, ie one may be Sunni or Shia but the importance of the sect is determined by demographic majority within a country (or ability to attract American support, as in Iraq) rather than any official stratification of the belief systems themselves. Plus no king/dictator/pope has absolute rule, not even a Caliph, who were castigated regularly by religious clerics. And no requirement except merit to move between circles of society (anyone with the ability can be king/dictator/caliph).I understand what you are suggesting. And this could be said of Xianity as well. There are about as many types of Xianity in the USA alone than one could count. Literally a few trillion televangelists :)

There are orthodox conservative Xians allll… the way over to all-gay Xians :)
And yet they all love Jesus (some more than others ;) and are Xians!

That said, I was wondering about the tenants themselves. Is there something in there, in the basic literature, that would inspire a religiously minded Hindu to change belief? Certainly we could agree, for whatever reasons, Buddhism did have this effect on my religiously minded Hindus?

Well think on it and if anything else pops up - I'm all ears,

Michael

That Christianity says hunt down "believers" who renounce Christianity and kill them, as Islam encourages to those who leave Islam?Yes. In poorer parts of the world, where Islamic fundies thrive. See Uganda, Nigeria, Indonesia and especially the Lord's Resistance Army of Uganda.

I understand what you are suggesting. And this could be said of Xianity as well. There are about as many types of Xianity in the USA alone than one could count. Literally a few trillion televangelists :)

There are orthodox conservative Xians allll… the way over to all-gay Xians :)
And yet they all love Jesus (some more than others ;) and are Xians!

That said, I was wondering about the tenants themselves. Is there something in there, in the basic literature, that would inspire a religiously minded Hindu to change belief? Certainly we could agree, for whatever reasons, Buddhism did have this effect on my religiously minded Hindus?

Well think on it and if anything else pops up - I'm all ears,

Michael

Are they the same thing though? e.g. Shias Sunnis Sufis Wahabis etc can all pray in Mecca/Medina under any imam. So Mecca/Medina is where all Muslims are ONE.

I believe the reason why Hinduism did not find Islam so attractive is that because they already have a heterodoxy of belief that is more expansive (from monotheism to polytheism to paganism to atheism). There was nothing new for them with Islam. They already had freedom for women (if you ignore Manu's devastating effects on women's status) so that was no big deal either. Plus they recognised that their system of caste (originally based on merit) was more useful to them in the form to which it had devolved (becoming hereditary in nature).

Buddhism was attractive for its simplicity but unfortunately simplicity has no enduring value.

Sam, the Koran says kill family members who leave Islam.

Sam, the Koran says kill family members who leave Islam.The bible says touching pigskin, getting a haircut, wearing garments of two different fabrics and sex with a mentrual woman are abominations unto god.(Leviticus)
Leviticus 25:44 allows the owning of slaves. (god forbid you touch a pig but own a slave? god says wtf not.)

No woman shall leave the home without a veil on her head. Corinthians11:5 She must NEVER open her mouth or fail to be completely submissive to her owner. (Timothy 2:11-12) And you insult Muslims!

A man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

Convenient ommissions the godsquad delete from their holy book as they self righteously condemn others.

Leviticus prohibitstattoos. Uh oh Hellbound christians! Also Leviticus says blind, crippled or handicapped cannot offer sacrifice to god. Not clean enough I guess!:p That's from Levit 21:16

Read it all in the books' contexts, and the Old Testament laws were for the chosen people before the time of Jesus' incarnation and resurrection, now we have the New Covenant.

Read it all in the books' contexts, and the Old Testament laws were for the chosen people before the time of Jesus' incarnation and resurrection, now we have the New Covenant.Ohhhh. So the NEW covenant says the OLD one is a lie, except for all the supernatural shit. Christians cherrypick and also claim the moral authority on everything. Islam taken out of context sounds almost as ridiculous and backward as xianity. Interesting if you step out of the fishbowl huh?

What fishbowl? Read the New Testament, it will tell you what's up.

What fishbowl? Read the New Testament, it will tell you what's up.Yeah. Been there. Grew up in southern baptist Sunday School. It's the same backward violent bullshit the Koran spills all over humanity. Read the Koran, IN IT'S CONTEXT as you expect people to read your holybook. Incapable aren'tcha. Just watch where you're wagging that finger, it might be a mirror.

"Violent bullshit," huh?

"Violent bullshit," huh?Yes. Just ONE part I'll repeat, you know, about the praying for the destruction of the Earth and the eternal deaths for ALL that do not subscribe to that slice of christianity? Kinda violent, no? The biblical character that was told by god to murder his son. There's lots of blood in your holybook. Lots more.

We aren't instructed to pray for the eternal deaths for all, we are instructed to pray that not happen.

And Abraham didn't have to kill Issac, God provided a lamb.

We aren't instructed to pray for the eternal deaths for all, we are instructed to pray that not happen.

And Abraham didn't have to kill Issac, God provided a lamb...to PROVE love for god he commanded Abe to murder his child. Bloodthirssty god ya got there! The protestant freaks I've heard REJOICE in the 2nd coming so ALL will die that do not embrace this minority religion. Most humans are not xian. You remind me, I gotta drop a deuce, back in a little while.

Genji, the point is that Abraham did not have to sacrifice his son, it just presaged that God's Son would be killed, but then resurrect.

Are they the same thing though? e.g. Shias Sunnis Sufis Wahabis etc can all pray in Mecca/Medina under any imam. So Mecca/Medina is where all Muslims are ONE. Sounds good except they have been at odds, sometimes to the point of even killing one another, for ~1400 years.

Regardless, nowadays, I think many Hindu and Jews, and Xians and Buddhists feel a similar commonality among their fellow co-religionists. Even if they do have doctrinal differences. They can all worship together.

It’s really all the same – in essence: people are people.

I believe the reason why Hinduism did not find Islam so attractive is that because they already have a heterodoxy of belief that is more expansive (from monotheism to polytheism to paganism to atheism). There was nothing new for them with Islam. They already had freedom for women (if you ignore Manu's devastating effects on women's status) so that was no big deal either. Plus they recognised that their system of caste (originally based on merit) was more useful to them in the form to which it had devolved (becoming hereditary in nature).Why do you suppose God decided to pick yet another human to, you know, let everyone know what the REAL God-inspired life-philosophy is all about then?

I mean, it just seems odd to me that the God-head (Creator & Master of the Universe and stuff … ) would take the time to use its Quantum Universe-sized Super-Duper-Computer-Godly-hard-disk and DOWNLOAD the REAL life Philosophy into a lipid&water-(together in flux)-poorly-constructed-for-long-term-fidelity (ever changing with recall) fluid-memory device called the human neural-net and then transmitted VIA sound to other always in flux and changing with each recall fluid-memory human neural-net devices and then transmitted VIA wooden scraps of bark and dead skin peaces and then transmitted VIA some other human-neural nets and then sometime later recorded by other neural nets over long periods of time AND THAT AFTER ALL THIS: Gods super-duper special life Philosophy would not even be comparable to the philosophical musings of mere mortal humans living in India? :bugeye:

WOW :eek: – that’s just plan surprising to me?!?!?!
One could say even crazy?

I must be an idiot, for, you see, I would have thought that the GodHead-TO-fluid-neural-net TO sound TO human neural nets TO wood/skin/bark TO neural net VIA time TO paper PERFECT recording of Gods life philosophy would surely have had AT LEAST ONE THING of novel interest in it!?!


If I were a more clever person perhaps I’d suggest that Mohammed simply copied the religion of Jews from which he surely grew up living within and combined it with Biblical and Zoroastrian theisms from the spriritual advisiers he clearly had and put an Arabic nationistic twist on it (as he was an Arab) adding stuff like god likes it when you walk around traditional special-to-Arab-nomades square rocks and stuff…. But hey I’m an idiot.

My loonacy agreed upon, I suppose maybe next time (if there is such a thing for “God”) maybe God should spend some time in India before he sends his next data transfer huh?!? Oh and use a PC – it’s quicker.
;)

Buddhism was attractive for its simplicity but unfortunately simplicity has no enduring value.I don’t get what you mean – Buddhism is older than Islam and Xianity and is the fastest growing belief system, via conversion out of Xianity and Islam, in AU?

What do you mean - has no enduring value? What of China, Thailand, Korea, Cambodia, Japan, ....?



That was fun,

Michael II

Allah was 1 of 360 pre Islamic Arab gods.

Allah was 1 of 360 pre Islamic Arab gods.So what? Judaic writings show that your god Jehovah (YHVH) had a wife called Asherah.

Xian writings show that Sophia was the bride of Christ – And OOOooo baby they get their syzygy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy)on and get it on good!


I can hear Yehoshua rapping it now:
Git syzygy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy) wid'dit .. na na, nah, na na, na na .. Git syzygy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy) wid'dit ... na na, nah, na na, na nah...


LOL!!
Michael

How foolish.

How foolish.
:rolleyes:
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."
(Matthew 5:22)

Burn Bitch Burn!
:cool:

Michael

PS: See you in Hell baby ;)

Sorry Tiger.

Besides, I didn't call you a good-for-nothing, I merely noted that your zany statement was foolish, get a grip, but nice meltdown anyway.

And besides also, the Bible says that fools say there is no God.

Besides, I didn't call you a good-for-nothing, I merely noted that your zany statement was foolish, get a grip, but nice meltdown anyway.Hey you implied I was a fool, you go to Hell, we party :)

Done Deal Icey :)
Michael

Your little smiley faces really enhance your high-end rejoinders!

:)
:)
:)

That says it all.