Somalia's Council of Islamic Courts

[S.A.M.]

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 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?

 

[Michael]

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

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[Michael]

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!

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?

Sheeple! Agreed!

Michael II

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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

 

[S.A.M.]

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. ).

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!

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.

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

Yeah right!

 

[Michael]

and we have been brainwashed into respecting all these free loaders.

Hahaahaaa!
Too Funny...
LOL

Michael

 

[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

 

[S.A.M.]

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).

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Whups, I should have said decrees theocracy.

 

[Genji]

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

Same things that can be heard of those that leave christianity.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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

 

[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).

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

 

[Genji]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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

 

[Genji]

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! That's from Levit 21:16

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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.

 

[Genji]

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?