Somalia's Council of Islamic Courts

[Sputnik]

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 ...

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[Sputnik]

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) .....

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[Sputnik]

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

Have to go sleep now - see you ...

 

[S.A.M.]

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

 

[Prince_James]

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

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[Prince_James]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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

 

[Michael]

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!

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[Michael]

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

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[Michael]

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 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

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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

 

[Michael]

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

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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