Of course Arabs had a profound impact on China, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, etc... - a lot of Chinese land was lost to the Arabs as they carved up Persia. Actually, a lot of Persians fled to China during the Islamic Crusades. Many many Persian widows and orphans were welcomed by the Chinese Emperor and so settled there and became Chinese.

At this point in history it was the Chinese traveling by sea to Egypt. Not Arabs traveling by sea to China. Who were the Chinese going to make a Temple for? An Arab they met in Syria who was never going to come to live in China? The overland trade route were garrisoned and maintained by the Persians - that is, the trade routes between China and Rome.

I already made a thread and linked it. Chinese Mosques. Educate yourself.


Intolerance of other people's faiths is a central plank of the Islam ideology. Just how many Hindu or Buddhist Temples exist in Mecca today? Let me guess SAM, the Arabs never met an Indian? Other than the million or so working as servants in the city.

So Arab traders in China was Chinese travelling by sea to Arabia?

Oh. Like islam, then.

hahaha.... yes SAM you've gotten it.



So, back onto the thread topic, we know that the Buddhist Chinese AND the Hindu Indians were accommodating of their Muslims trading partners - granting land, paying for and building mosques for Muslims in their Empires and Kingdoms - where's the likewise reciprocation from Muslims SAM?

Well?

What would be a central obvious ideology expressed in the Qur'an that leads to a situation where Muslims are happy to take advantage of other people's generosity but are themselves unwilling to reciprocate the kindness they were shown?


Where are Buddhist and Hindu Temples in Mecca?

This

“

Mecca was never capital of any of the Islamic states but Muslim rulers did contribute to its upkeep. During the reigns of Uthman Ibn Affan (c. 579-656) and Umar (c. 586-590-644 CE) concerns of flooding caused the caliphs to bring in Christian engineers to build barrages in the low-lying quarters and construct dykes and embankments to protect the area round the Kaaba.

”

Reminds me of the cities being built in the ME for the oil rich states today. A lot of skyscrapers are designed by Dutch and Germans and being built by Pakistani and Indians. Interesting.

Today this is purely because Arabs sit atop a lot of oil. Oil = power and wealth. In the past this wasn't the case. How then did the Arabs convince people to build Baghdad for them? In that time period might = power and wealth. One way to maintain power and wealth is through religion - such as teaching people (who had had their lands colonized) that they should be taxed for the privilege of maintaining their cultural identity. Once control of the silk road was secured - this would have helped shore up the balance sheets. Does the Qur'an foster such notions or stamp them out?

I think all this shows is that all the others cared about was money while Muslims were more serious about their religion.

Peace be unto you

I find your comment interesting: What do you mean by, Muslims being more serious about their religion?


Could it be possible that Buddhists and Hindu ideologies have the capacity to "be serious about their religion" AND at the exact same time also be accommodating to people of different faiths? Even to the point of according that other faith equality to itself? I guess what I'm asking is: Do you think it's possible the Chinese Buddhist and Indian Hindu could have built Mosques for Muslims to pray in AND doing so fit perfectly well within their religious doctrines? So building a Mosque actually was NOT going against their religious ideology?


Suppose that Dubai were to allow for the construction of a large Buddhist Temple. Would you say that Muslims in Dubai were being open-minded and tolerant and even kind-hearted towards Buddhist who visit Dubai OR would you say their only motivation was greed and they were not serious about their religion? I mean, if they were serious about Islam, they wouldn't allow for a large Buddha to be built in Dubai?

I'm still waiting on the Buddhists and Hindus emigrating to Arabia when Arabs were emigrating to their lands.

Why would there be temples for a population that did not exist? There are churches and synagogues all over the Middle East.

The only non-Abrahamic emigration to these places were the Mongols and since in Mongolian law the khan was the law, when the khans embraced Islam, they all did.

One-way streets are funny like that aren't they. As we stated. Chinese and Indians have settled everywhere they were welcomed. From Indonesia to the USA.

That aside, what did you think about 786's theory on greed?

Anyway, you've been to Mecca, are there Taoist, Hindu, Shinto or Buddhist Temples there? China, India and Japan have all allowed for Mosques to be built - even though the Muslims population in Japan is minuscule, they're still afforded the respect to build their own Mosques. How about for the Japanese living and working in KSA, SAM?

Another way to look at it could be from the Christian point of view. We know that Muslims happily traveled half way around the world to trade with Chinese. These goods they often then sold to Italians. Why were Muslim traders afforded a place to live and worship in China and not in Italy?

Well?

Could it be that Italians were happy to trade with Muslims but not happy to see them living in their cities. They were happy to trade with Muslims, but not happy to grant them land to live on. They surely weren't about to build them a Mosque. Why? Why were Indians and Chinese accommodating of both Muslims and Christians - while Muslims and Christians did not act likewise?

Really as simple as greed?

Could it be exactly as 786 suggest in the later half of the reply? That Christians and Muslims were serious about their religion? Not MORE serious mind you, as Indians and Chinese were JUST as serious about their faith. It's just that being a "serious" monotheist has implications in how the "serious" monotheist perceives people who have a different faith. Being a "serious" Hindu or a "serious" Buddhist leads down a very VERY different path

Monotheism itself is so fundamentally intertwined with an intolerance of other people's faith that even differences in monotheistic dogma itself are intolerable. See Catholics, Sunni, Baptists or Shia.


I asked a Japanese today: Do you suppose that the real reason why Americans allow Japanese to built Shinto Temples in Hawaii is due to greed? They said no, it doesn't have anything to do with money, it's just American culture.

Does Islamic culture encourage people of other faiths to settle and practice their faiths in cities like Mecca? How about Christian culture?

Another word for being Serious about a belief is to be a Fundamentalist.