The Qur'an

[iceaura]

For which the Quran would be the explanation ready to hand, that book being the unique common feature of Islamic lands.
”
Except apparently where the Chinese and Indians have embraced it.

The Quran is not a common feature of Chinese and Indian Islam?

The fact that Hinduism or Buddhism did not achieve mass appeal in Arab may be explained by the loss of Buddhism in the Pashtuns, who thereafter did not revert back to Buddhism.

No. The "explanation" would begin with an account of why the Pashtuns abandoned their Buddhism (if any), and why they did not re-embrace it in the face of Islam (if the opportunity existed).

The role of "mass appeal" would be discussed, among other factors.

 

[S.A.M.]

The role of "mass appeal" would be discussed, among other factors.

Agreed.

 

[GeoffP]

Ok, now don't go back on your words- and don't start bullshitting again-

Woman is allowed to wear gold, and silk- because she is a woman.
Man is NOT allowed to wear gold and silk- because he is a man.

Therefore woman have been superior to man for the lifetime of Islamic history.

How about in Q 4:11 where women are given less inheritance than men, or Q 4:34 where they're allowed to be physically beaten? Does this still make them superior?

Oh, and no more racist assumptions about Europeans. Thanks.

Empiricism: the Christians were the last to embrace it and only after prolonged contact with the Muslim world.

Equality: They still find it hard to see all people as equal

Really? In which part of the world was slavery most recently legal?

Inalienable rights of the individual: a purely Islamic concept, where no priest or authority has a "higher power"''

And thats just off the top of my head.

I think you should probably stop arguing off the top of your head.

Fantastic! Finally, someone with a bit of brains and I thank you Geoff for being amicable and objective in your analysis. This is something that has been completely lacking in this thread alone....

The (correct) statistical milieu you have set forward would only be of use for such methods as the BC, but not to ascertain the probabilistic validity of the Quran. Therefore, because I am not (and never had) said that the Quran uses any such method, besides reading it normally; it should not be criticized in the same manner.

But, rather, it should and will be. Whether or not the text is being read in the manner intended, your findings appear essentially spurious, especially since similar convergence can be found in simple novels such as Moby Dick.

So in the end, the facts I have presented in the Quran were in no way like the BC and no ‘mathematical language system’ or a system of “numerical occurrences” is used.

But it is. You simply present the mathematical occurrences from a linear reading. This isn't different unless you can demonstrate no such occurrences (or a lower rate of them) in a selection of texts. Nor have you done so. You agree to the notion of my post, but not in its follow-through.

I’m sorry, but I already have and still, nothing was done. Ask the moderators yourself if you like?

Have you considered that the mods didn't agree with you, and that you were wrong?

 

[786]

You need to stop reading silly old stories and think logically rather than fantasize about things that don't exist! Try growing a brain!!!

What doesn't exist?

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

:roflmao:

That has got to be one of silliest things I've read from you today. Well done.

Only silly things get across to silly people.... I'm starting to understand that.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

I think I said woman were suprerior...



I'll just use your example. Both woman and men are not allowed to wear panties or mini-skirts. Hence equal.

I'm done with your crap

"Surely for men who submit to Allah and for women who submit to Allah, for believing men and for believing women, for devout men and devout women, for truthful men and truthful women, for steadfast men and steadfast women, for humble men and humble women, for charitable men and charitable women, for fasting men and fasting women, for men who guard their chastity and women who guard their chastity, for men who remember Allah much and for women who remember Allah much, for all of them Allah has prepared forgiveness and a mighty reward." (Quran 33:35)

Peace be unto you

That's OK 786, I know it's hard to face facts. Western nations went through similar periods. At least you can play your part as an apologist - moving Islamic culture another small inch into the Western direction.


History show's that women have never achieved (and still are not no where near the level of) equality with Islamic men. Recent achievements made by women in Muslim countries to gain a level of equality has been modeled on feminist movements in Western nations ... certainly NOT on the Qur'an. Yes, women have to act as apologists and reinterpret this superstitious book of course. Christians did and are still doing the same. The truth is, the Qur'an and Islamic culture has been utilized over millennia to repress women and prevent them from having equal rights with men.

I find it telling how Iranian many women have mentioned to me how Persian woman were treated with a level of equality during the pre-Islamic Zorostrian Persian Empire compared with under "Arab Culture". They tell me women had right that were unparalleled for that time in history. And, get this, MUCH MUCH better then under the "Islamic Republic".


I'm sure many Xians got just as bitchy when they had to face the fact the earth isn't 7000 years old. Luckily only a few still do - they rest have come to grips with reality and history.

 

[Michael]

Yeah, I noticed. Things are so much better since the Europeans drew their lines on the map.

Also you seem to confuse Chinese embracing Islam with accomodating Arabs. Very strange.

Oh I didn't know there was a Chinese Emperor who was Muslim?

Here are the facts:
The Chinese Emperors were called the "Son of Heaven". An Emperor was God's representative on Earth. This never changed until the early 1900s. One Emperor, whose capitol city was the largest city in the world at that time, gave permission for a Mosque to be built in his capitol city. Not because he was a Muslim but because he was open to trade and different cultures. There were Churches built in China, Buddhist temples and Hindu Temples - and then of course The Emperor as a Son of God had a Temple in the center and of course this was the grandest dwarfing all the other temples. China mostly continued to have good trade relations with Arab traders. And the Mosque was allowed to face towards Mecca (most building faced south for feng shui [aka: the prevailing winds]).

Likewise, the Hindu did a massive amount of trade with Arabs. Pre- and post-Islam.
Hindus rulers who remained Hindu were still more than happy to allow Mosques to be built - right next to their own Hindu Temples to their Gods.

So, we have Historical examples of Chinese and Indian open-mindedness.

So, can you tell me SAM, were the Arab Muslims ever equally as accommodating? They traded with the Chinese - did they allow Temples to Chinese Gods or Buddha to be built in Mecca? What about Hindu Temples in Mecca?

Well?

I bet they didn't. Why? Because unlike Taoism or Hinduism or Buddhism - Islam is an intolerant racist ideology - there's no way Muslims in Mecca would be as generous and open-minded as the Chinese or Indians. And that's why Islamic nations have only been successful when they monopolized the spice and silk trade routes. As soon as the Europeans cut out the intolerant middle men - no more Islamic Empire.

 

[786]

That's OK 786, I know it's hard to face facts. Western nations went through similar periods. At least you can play your part as an apologist - moving Islamic culture another small inch into the Western direction.

The only thing that is okay is that you got played on your own definition. I'm done here.

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

The only thing that is okay is that you got played on your own definition. I'm done here.

Peace be unto you

I got "played" on my own definitions?

OK - if you think so.


Look, I'm sorry you feel upset, but, if you're going to debate something expect to challenge your ideas. If you can present a good argument I'll change my mind. I will always be skeptical of a passage about a chewed meat equating to deep insight into embryology and ergo there is a God. These sorts of arguments are at best silly. Not to mention that this was a clear plagiarism of Gallen.



What's truly important in the Qur'an? Who are the main characters in this story? Wouldn't you think that the main ideas are THERE is only ONE GOD and that God is Allah? All other God's are false? I'd say this is a central idea in the Qur'an.



RE: Female equality. Even Europeans, who still hadn't given women legal freedom equal to their own, were appalled at how women were treated in Islamic nations - even 400 years ago! Ask yourself 786: ever hear someone talk about Mohammad's multiple wives with pride? That Mohammad was "The Man" and oh boy he could rock the boat all night long - yeah yeah, Big Man Mohammad. I've heard multiple Muslim guys tell me Mohammad was renown for being able to take a turn at each all night long.

In the space of about 15 years Communist Ideology banned Slavery and gave women freedom. Something Islam did not accomplish in 1400 years. Something to think about.

 

[786]

but, if you're going to debate something expect to challenge your ideas.

Lol.... If only you could take this advice and apply it to yourself, all would be so much better.

Peace be unto you

 

[S.A.M.]

So, we have Historical examples of Chinese and Indian open-mindedness.
Because unlike Taoism or Hinduism or Buddhism - Islam is an intolerant racist ideology - there's no way Muslims in Mecca would be as generous and open-minded as the Chinese or Indians. And that's why Islamic nations have only been successful when they monopolized the spice and silk trade routes. As soon as the Europeans cut out the intolerant middle men - no more Islamic Empire.

So the reason the Chinese embraced Islam is because they recognised it as less worthy than what they were already following?

Why would you go shopping for an ideology if you're content with the one you have? What would attract a Muslim to Buddhism or Hinduism?

Maybe atheists in these countries who dabble in mysticism and such, might be, but do they usually construct temples anywhere in the world?

Do they even visit temples and chant in the name of Buddha?

 

[Michael]

Lol.... If only you could take this advice and apply it to yourself, all would be so much better.

Peace be unto you

I have, I initially thought Mohammad was a pedo, now I don't. The evidence suggests that the Mohammad character was married to the 9 year old because this meant she was a virgin - I mean, the idea was WHO in hell would have sex with a 9 year old? No one. So, she must have been a virgin and her virginity meant that any children she had also had the bloodline of Mohammad. AND in typical fashion of the day - bloodline some how meant aptitude or right to rule. I heard some politicians in Iran talking it up on how they are decedents of Mohammad - so vote for them! Well, 1400 years ago it was somewhat the same thing - minus the plebeian vote.

Sadly GW Bush Jr was probably elected through similar memes....

Anyway, the fact stands that woman never reached the level of equity with man. Actually, in the last 1000 years has there ever been a female Caliphate? I know there was a pre-Islamic Persian ruler who was female for a short period. I find it funny how Muslim make the argument that things were better for woman AFTER Islam and yet history shows that was not the case. Females in Iran had a better deal BEFORE Islam. Even look at the Iranian Revolution - look at Female rights in the 60s and 70s versus the 90s. As the Republic became more "Islamic" it went backwards. This has always been the case for the last 1400 year - you just don't get it. For you Slavery was Institutionalized because not to do so would "disrupt the economy"... please, as if GOD is worried about the economy. To bad you couldn't tell that to a Slave back then - I wonder if they'd have agreed with you? I doubt it. SAM on the other hand says Slaver were really no different from freeman because on Slave solder once carved out a peace of India and was made a ruler. :bugeye: Tell that to the millions of Slaves who were raped. Beaten. Sold on.

Denying the vileness of Slavery is a disgrace to the men and women Slaves who have suffered. That FACT that you two have such a hard time comeing to terms with this EASILY observable fact is the reason why the ME is in the sad shape it is in - and has been for 1000 years.


So? Did the Arabs ever build Religions Temples in Mecca for the Taoist, Buddhist and Hindus as those nations did for the Muslims? Why or Why not?

 

[Michael]

So the reason the Chinese embraced Islam is because they recognised it as less worthy than what they were already following?

The Chinese didn't "embrace Islam" SAM. The Chinese Emperor embraced Buddhism and through this enlightened outlook he embraced multiculturalism. So he designated an area of his city to have a Mosque for the Muslim traders to be built. His ideology was obviously one of being open-minded. He didn't just look to trade with Arabs but to also respect their religion.

So? What I'm wondering is did the Arabs do the same in Mecca?

It's a pretty simple question SAM. Hey, I have an idea, why not try answering it? Did the Muslims treat the Chinese they traded with with the same respect and built a Temple in Mecca for them? Well?


How about the Indians. You LOVE to prattle on about how open-minded and wonderful Indians are. OK, I agree. History shows that Hindus Kings even allowed for Mosques to be build for their Arab Trading partners. So? Did the Arabs treat the Indians to the same level of respect? Did they erect Temples for the Hindus to utilize when they were in Mecca? Well? Again, a simple question.



Michael

NOTE: The river Thames was blessed in London back 2 centuries ago so that Indian living in London could celebrate Hindus religious festivals in London. For that reason it's pretty common to find Indian religious items along it's banks. Well, where's the Muslim Arab equivalent?

Hell, I'm wondering now, ARE there ANY Buddhist Temples in Mecca even TODAY? Please don't tell me that the Muslim are STILL that intolerant to other people's faiths? Surely they've moved past that in the 21st century???

 

[S.A.M.]

The Chinese didn't "embrace Islam" SAM.

Okay, then there is nothing to talk about.

hint: neither the Chinese nor the Indians built mosques for traders.

 

[Michael]

hint: Yes, the Chinese Emperor decided exactly what was built and where it was built in his capitol city.

- Chinese built mosques for Muslim trading partners = tolerance of different belief systems.
- Hindu built mosques for Muslim trading partners = tolerance of different belief systems.

Arab Muslims not building any Temples or Shrines for any of their Trading partners = classic and reoccurring example of Islamic Intolerance.



Again, this truly is the lesson taught to the rest of Humanity by the Qur'an. Who know's? Maybe that's the legacy of Islam? To serve as an example of all that's wrong with intolerant monotheistic ideology.

 

[S.A.M.]

Try again. The Emperor built the mosque for immigrants. The Arabs at the time were following the Prophets decree to travel the world and settled in many foreign nations.

Did the Chinese immigrate to Arab lands? When the Mongols did they abandoned shamanism, Buddhism and Christianity and adopted Islam.

And even though they were in power for several hundred years, did not built any temples.

I've heard that China towns are coming up in some Arab countries. It will be interesting to see how that culture develops/

http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/reportage/2008/05/2/reportage-01

 

[Michael]

Try again. The Emperor built the mosque for immigrants. The Arabs at the time were following the Prophets decree to travel the world and settled in many foreign nations.

Did the Chinese immigrate to Arab lands? When the Mongols did they abandoned shamanism, Buddhism and Christianity and adopted Islam.

And even though they were in power for several hundred years, did not built any temples.

I've heard that China towns are coming up in some Arab countries. It will be interesting to see how that culture develops/

http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/reportage/2008/05/2/reportage-01

Mongols are Mongols - nomadic herdsmen who lived on the steps. Some suggest they wiped out about tens of millions of Chinese reducing the population in Western China by 80%.

80%


The Mongols the settled in China became Taoists and Buddhists.
The Mongols that settled in E. Europe became Christians.
The Mongols the settled in Turkey became Sunni Muslims.
The Mongols the settled in Persia became Shia Muslims.

How does this address my comment or the OP? The Mongols wiped out Muslims left and right. They burned Baghdad to the ground probably destroying the largest collection of literature in the world. They rolled the Caliph up in a carpet and rode their horses over him. They stacked the heads of Persians into huge mounds. Of course, they rulled each people according to whatever religion was there - religious ideology was not important at all to Mongols - they were concerned with conquering and then ruling over people.

 

[S.A.M.]

Mongols are Mongols - nomadic herdsmen who lived on the steps. Some suggest they wiped out about tens of millions of Chinese reducing the population in Western China by 80%.

80%


The Mongols the settled in China became Taoists and Buddhists.
The Mongols that settled in E. Europe became Christians.
The Mongols the settled in Turkey became Sunni Muslims.
The Mongols the settled in Persia became Shia Muslims.

How does this address my comment or the OP? The Mongols wiped out Muslims left and right. They burned Baghdad to the ground probably destroying the largest collection of literature in the world. They rolled the Caliph up in a carpet and rode their horses over him. They stacked the heads of Persians into huge mounds. Of course, they rulled each people according to whatever religion was there - religious ideology was not important at all to Mongols - they were concerned with conquering and then ruling over people.

But the Mongols were the only group in China that emigrated. China was a developed civlisation at the time, so the Chinese did not move to Arabia. Similarly, later on when the Mongols established their Empire they did not move back from India to China. Again, neither did the Turks move to China even after Islam. Its only the Arabs and Persians, who travelled and settled abroad and wrote about other places and peoples.

The most the Chinese wandered at the time was to India, I think.

 

[Michael]

But the Mongols were the only group in China that emigrated. China was a developed civlisation at the time, so the Chinese did not move to Arabia. Similarly, later on when the Mongols established their Empire they did not move back from India to China. Again, neither did the Turks move to China even after Islam. Its only the Arabs and Persians, who travelled and settled abroad and wrote about other places and peoples.

The most the Chinese wandered at the time was to India, I think.

:bugeye:

Chinese moved everywhere they traded SAM. Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Thailand, Taiwan, ... everywhere. Soon after the New World was discovered they moved to New Amsterdam. They built the railroads from the East and West coasts. They lived in Japan. They migrated everywhere they were welcomed.

Second, you're saying Indians never migrated outside of India!?!? There are Indians everywhere! And have been for millennial.

Again, the obvious answer is staring you in the face. Islam teaches there is One God. It is inherently hostile towards people of different faiths. It teaches only the people of the book are accepted religions. It teach to tax people if they are not Muslims. It teaches to treat non-Muslims with hostility.

Because of these hateful ideologies non-Muslim have not been welcomed into cities like Mecca in the way Muslims have been welcomed into other peoples cities. This is so obvious you'd have to be completely blind not to see it.

 

[Vega]

Excellent answer "Michael". she must be on google right now trying to come up with a counter argument!