Why are Muslims so violent and intolerant?

[ammark]

Originally Posted by Kashani-BD
did i not ask for a shia source, did u read my post?
....

I'm lost where you're going with this. I dont have any specific sources to provide, except my readings on early muslim history long ago and wikipedia at best. You can disparage my lack of valid sources if you want, but the course of history has been set in stone 1300 years ago anyway, so why're you crying about spilled milk now?

Regardless, in the context of this thread, my criticism of your logic was and is in how its ludicrous you whinge and cry about Iraqis, Palestinians, etc and invoke the deeds of the Sahabas while implying that murdering, and bombing a US diplomat is somehow excusable and justified (i.e, "right") because of a silly film some whackjob made, in a global scenario of "Western Oppression against the Muslim World".

Given your attempts at logical connections between events, I wont argue further anyway, Electrequiem has said it best.

Originally Posted by Electrequiem

[Nafi]

Originally Posted by Rubu
Care to explain?

When you have hadiths taught like these to be law, well of course you will end up with a barbaric society.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ “

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460:

Abu Dawud:
Book 38, Number 4407:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

Ma'iz ibn Malik came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said that he had committed fornication and he (the Prophet) turned away from him. He repeated it many times, but he (the Prophet) turned away from him. He asked his people: Is he mad? They replied: There is no defect in him. He asked: Have you done it with her? He replied: Yes. so he ordered that he should be stoned to death. He was taken out and stoned to death, and he (the Prophet) did not pray over him.

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning."

Abu-Dawud
Book 11, Number 2142:

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

Book 38, Number 4467:

Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn AbuSufyan:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If they (the people) drink wine, flog them, again if they drink it, flog them. Again if they drink it, kill them

Abu Dawud:
Book 34, Number 4225:

Narrated A sister of Hudhayfah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: You women folk, have in silver something with which you adorn yourselves. I assure you that any woman of you who adorns herself with gold which she displays will be punished for it.

Book 34, Number 4226:

Narrated Asma' daughter of Yazid:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Any woman who wears a gold necklace will have a similar one of fire put on her neck on the Day of Resurrection, and any woman who puts a gold earring in her ear will have a similar one of fire put in her ear on the Day of Resurrection.

[al Furqaan]

Thank you Nafi. There are far too many hadiths like this when combined with the village mullah's barely literate understanding of everything - 3 Rs, Islam, Quran, Hadith, you name it - leads to a volatile and precarious state of the Ummah's mindset. Almost all of the hadith cited by Nafi are direct contradictions of the Quranic injunctions on those exact subjects. Sohel bhai had a great post once about how the verse of beating your wife when taken apart literally in Arabic actually means something totally different! The victim mentality is rampant within almost all Islamic societies, whether they are legit victims or not. Then you throw in Western foreign policy which is heavily skewed against the interests of most Muslim peoples (Balkan Muslims being about the only example I can think of off the top of my head) and the current script is almost read from a script. All of the strife and backwardness faced by Muslims today can be eliminated with a proper understanding of Islamic tenets, contrary to what Electreq might guess.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Rifat
that was more of a shot at me than anyone else

Bro... I don't know what you look like in real life. At all. So chill...

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Thank you Nafi. There are far too many hadiths like this when combined with the village mullah's barely literate understanding of everything - 3 Rs, Islam, Quran, Hadith, you name it - leads to a volatile and precarious state of the Ummah's mindset. Almost all of the hadith cited by Nafi are direct contradictions of the Quranic injunctions on those exact subjects. Sohel bhai had a great post once about how the verse of beating your wife when taken apart literally in Arabic actually means something totally different! The victim mentality is rampant within almost all Islamic societies, whether they are legit victims or not. Then you throw in Western foreign policy which is heavily skewed against the interests of most Muslim peoples (Balkan Muslims being about the only example I can think of off the top of my head) and the current script is almost read from a script. All of the strife and backwardness faced by Muslims today can be eliminated with a proper understanding of Islamic tenets, contrary to what Electreq might guess.

No guessworks on my part.

You are free to indulge in any mental gymnastics about the Quran and the Hadith's moral relativism and compatibility - but know they are nothing but mental gymnastics. Suddenly "daraba" doesn't mean "to strike," violent hadiths are not "in proper context" or "made up" since it is a mental burden to try to combine those with the idealized depiction of the Prophet and the religion, etc etc. Suddenly, everything Muslims have been taught that seem to have a whiff of controversy "is not really that way, we just don't understand it right." Give me a break. If the Quran is the eternal truth imparted to humanity and it is of utmost importance to Allah that people understand and adhere to it, why would it be rendered so confusing, so incredibly complex where words don't mean words and actions don't really mean actions?

If such cognitive dissonance was applied to any other topic than Islam, it'd be defenestrated quicker than a cigarette butt. But, alas, when religion is involved, people are a lot more lenient because face it - it's easier to tweak one's mind-view and delude oneself further rather than to undo years of brainwashing.

[Electrequiem]

Where are the Buddhist riots in response to the destruction of their holy relics by Muslims?
Where are the Christian riots in response to the persecution they face in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia?

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem

If such cognitive dissonance was applied to any other topic than Islam, it'd be defenestrated quicker than a cigarette butt. But, alas, when religion is involved, people are a lot more lenient because face it - it's easier to tweak one's mind-view and delude oneself further rather than to undo years of brainwashing.

Cognitive dissonance? Thats a bit harsh especially since it wasn't me who switched the definition of "atheism" to mean that of "agnosticism" because of the inability to reconcile the fact that atheism is ultimately as unempirical as the opiate delusions that Marx spoke of. It wasn't me, sir, who thought Webster's definition of atheism was incorrect.

No guessworks on my part.

You are free to indulge in any mental gymnastics about the Quran and the Hadith's moral relativism and compatibility - but know they are nothing but mental gymnastics. Suddenly "daraba" doesn't mean "to strike," violent hadiths are not "in proper context" or "made up" since it is a mental burden to try to combine those with the idealized depiction of the Prophet and the religion, etc etc. Suddenly, everything Muslims have been taught that seem to have a whiff of controversy "is not really that way, we just don't understand it right."

Well my man, it only makes sense that if the Quran and Hadith both represent the same religion, they should not be in contradiction to one another. I mean if the Quran is what Muhammad said, and the Hadith is what some dude said that Muhammad said...they should be the same, right? Assuming of course that guy wasn't pulling things out of his anal cavity with ulterior motives in mind.

We can see that in case at least, no gymnastics are required. I'll let you as the "rational" atheist-agnostic figure it out on your own with this simple excercise:

Here's the hadith-certified way to deal with apostates, as quoted by Nafi above...

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ “

Here's what the Quran says:

How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and had witnessed that the Messenger is true and clear signs had come to them? And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. (3:86)

Nope, nothing about executing people for apostacy.

Indeed, those who reject the message after their belief and then increase in disbelief - never will their [claimed] repentance be accepted, and they are the ones astray. (3:90)

Nothing about death or killing apostates here either...go figure?

On the Day [some] faces will turn white and [some] faces will turn black. As for those whose faces turn black, [to them it will be said], "Did you disbelieve after your belief? Then taste the punishment for what you used to reject." (3:106)

Ahh yes...of with their heads at last! Oh wait, only God can punish apostates...this religion really is no fun!

Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after your belief. If We pardon one faction of you - We will punish another faction because they were criminals. (9:66)

So only the criminal apostates get punished?

Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment; (16:106)

Ok, ok, God I get it...only you reserve the right to judement and punishment and not us...jeez, you don't have to rub it in!

As far as beating one's wife goes...daraba really doesn't mean to beat as Sohel bhai dug out a very interesting fabrication in translation by some Chris Brown wannabe mullah.

Are Women to be Beaten?
By Layth (e-mail: laytth@hotmail.com)

In some parts of the Middle East and other areas of the Muslim world, a woman may be beaten severely by her husband or male relatives for something as ridiculous as not having dinner prepared on time. It is a common theme amongst some male Muslims to beat their women whenever they think it is deserved and they can rest assured that the entire Islamic Scholars will be right behind them for support.

Although this may sound bizarre, the Muslim Scholars (should be SOME SCHOLARS, NOT ALL as implied here by my overly zealous fellow traveler here) have told people that God has ordained in His holy book that women may be beaten if their male counter-part is not pleased with them. The verse that Muslims claim gives a green light to commit violence against their women-folk is the following:

[Yusufali Translation]: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear "Nushooz" disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) "Idribuhun" beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." (4:34)

If indeed God had commanded men to beat their `disloyal` women, then we have no course of action but to `hear & obey`...However, there is more than meets the eye in accepting the common interpretation of verse 4:34 which is the subject of this article.

The Quran is best studied by placing all similar subject words/verses together (this approach is called `Tarteel` and has been advised by the Almighty in 73:4).

There are two key words that are central to deriving the correct meaning for this topic:

1. Nushuz (translated above `disloyalty & ill-conduct).

2. Idribuhun (translated above as `beat them`).

The first word `Nushooz` will give us an understanding of what the subject is all about...Is this about a woman who is disloyal and in ill-conduct (an adulteress or temptress perhaps?) Or, has this word been mistranslated based on a backdrop of social ignorance and male domination?

Nushooz means: `to rise / go above`.

This can be seen clearly in 58:11 where people are told to `Nushooz` from the place of gathering/sitting.

[Yusufali Translation]: O ye who believe! When ye are told to make room in the assemblies, (spread out and) make room: (ample) room will Allah provide for you. And when ye are told "Inshuzoo" *to rise up, rise up Allah will rise up, to (suitable) ranks (and degrees), those of you who believe and who have been granted (mystic) Knowledge. And Allah is well-acquainted with all ye do." (58:11)

* Notice how our translator [Yusufali] has given the correct translation in the verse, whereas in 4:34 it was all about `disloyalty & ill-conduct`.

Therefore, the issue we are dealing with here is not adultery or some other act of immorality, but rather it is the subject of a woman `rebelling / going against` her husband (going above them, not acknowledging the other, not listening, deserting them, etc.).

Let us read what the Quran tells us to do when it is the man that is doing the `Nushooz` and not the woman:

[Yusufali Translation]: If a wife fears cruelty or "Nushooz" **desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do." (4:128)

** Again, we see our translator [yusufali] magically giving the correct meaning by translating `Nushooz` as `desertion` when it just happened that the male was the subject matter!

The Quran tells us that if the man is the one who is doing the `Nushooz` then the couple need to reconcile or part since he obviously has rebelled against his wife (can't stand to be with her, finds himself wanting to leave from her presence, etc..)...The verse does not say that the woman should `beat` the man into submission or bring her men-folk to do so in order to knock some sense into him...It says they should talk, and reconcile, since obviously this is an issue which needs people to come-back into respecting and loving one another, or part ways.

Now to move back to the verse where the woman is the one doing the `Nushooz` using the correct translation:

"The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women who are attentive, and keep private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear a "Nushooz" desertion, then you shall advise them, and abandon them in the bedchamber, and "Idribuhun" Beat them?; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great.` (4:34)

If we look at the subject matter, it is of a woman who cannot stand her man and therefore has rebelled from him...As with the example of the man being the one rebelling, there are steps to `calm things down` and to bring harmony into the marriage...Beating a woman if she can't stand her man and has rebelled against him will only make her hate him more (not exactly a logical or practical solution to the problem).

Obviously now that the subject has been better understood, it is the second word "Idribuhun" which needs examination in light of the Quran.

"Have you not seen how God puts forth (Daraba) the example of a good word is like a good tree, whose root is firm and its branches in the sky." (The Message 14:24)

"For the poor who face hardship in the cause of God, they cannot go forth (Darban) in the land; the ignorant ones think they are rich from their modesty; you know them by their features, they do not ask the people repeatedly. And what you spend out of goodness, God is fully aware of it." (2:273)

Daraba (in its natural state) means: `to put forth`

The only reason this word can sometimes mean hit/strike is because a person is `putting forth` his hand when striking someone (see 8:12, 8:50, 47:27).

"And if you could only see as the Angels take those who have rejected, they "Yadriboon" strike their faces and their backs: `Taste the punishment of the blazing Fire!`" (8:50)

Looking back at 4:34, we see that the context of the verse (solving the wife's rejection of her husband) leads us to choose the natural meaning of "Darab" which is: `to put forth` and not the alternative meaning of `strike`.

"The men are to support the women by what God has gifted them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women who are attentive, and keep private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear a desertion, then you shall 1) advise them, and 2) abandon them in the bedchamber, and 3) "Idribuhun" let them go forth; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great." (4:34)

The approach of choosing the `best` understanding and/or meaning is both logical and, more importantly, in-line with the guidance for study we are given by God:

"The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the BEST of it. These are the ones whom God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence." (39:18)

What we have now is a comprehensive list of steps in order for a man to deal with his wife who wants to desert her husband and can no longer stand to be with him...

Talk about it. This is obviously the simplest and healthiest method since it opens the communication channel between both parties.

Abstain from sharing the same bed. This is the 2nd approach the man is advised to use if they are unable to reconcile their problem as the lack of sexual contact may lead to the wife to cool down as intimate contact may simply inflame the situation if she is unable to stand her husband.

1. Separate from each other. The 3rd and final line of advice is designed as a 'cooling-off' period and is mainly designed to help the wife re-think and examine the situation closely without the physical presence of her husband.

2. The logic and clarity of the above steps are a far cry from the wife beating and bashing claims which this article started off examining....

3. As for those who have been promoting the evil inherited from their forefathers while claiming falsely it was from God...

"And if they commit evil acts, they Say: `We found our fathers doing such, and God ordered us to it.` Say: `God does not order evil! Do you say about God what you do not know?` Say: `My Lord orders justice, and that you be devoted at every temple, and that you call on Him, while being faithful to Him in the system; as He initiated you, so you will return.` A group He has guided and a group have deserved misguidance; that is because they have taken the devils as allies besides God; and they think they are guided!" (7:28-30)

Questions / Issues

Below are some arguments/questions which have been presented in support of the understanding to `beat women` as claimed is the true meaning in 4:34.

In Arabic, the word for `separate from them` is `IdribuANhun` and not `Idribuhun` as used in 4:34. Therefore `beat` is the correct meaning.

The people who raise such linguistic obstacles fail to notice that God uses the very same word `Darab` such as in 14:24 without any prefix.

"Have you not seen how God puts forth (Daraba) the example of a good word is like a good tree, whose root is firm and its branches in the sky." (The Message 14:24)

Would they claim by the very same linguistic argument that God is `beating` an example? Or, will they accept that without any prefix the word can mean to `put forth`?

The word `Idrib` means `beat` if applied to a living object/thing and can mean otherwise if applied to a non-living object/thing.

This is mainly an argument put forth by groups who have preconceived notions and wish to keep believing that Islam is a mindless and barbaric system. The argument holds no merit based on linguistics or Arabic grammar. In-fact, the usage of the word `Idrib` as applied in verse 24:31 puts an end to this argument as the women are obviously not being commanded to `beat` their bosoms with their shawls, but rather they are commanded to `put-forth` their shawls:

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and keep covered their private parts, and that they should not reveal their beauty except what is apparent, and let them put-forth (YaDribna) their shawls over their cleavage..." (24:31)

Now I'll ask you Electreq bhai...is proper and consistent interpretation of the word daraba gymnastics? How about making sure if hadith are consistent with the Quran? Is that gymnastics? If so, how about mis-defining the word atheism...is that gymnastics?

[Kashani-BD]

Where are the Buddhist riots in response to the destruction of their holy relics by Muslims

all the muslims in Burma are being killed or removed from the country Burma, no need for protest, as they are finishing the muslims off.

second question, don't understand, can u explain it please.

[Electrequiem]

AF,

Your attempt at refueling of a resolved debate on what atheism is and isn't is rather pathetic. I won't address them. You can believe what you want. I have never revealed - nor will I - in this forum what I consider myself to be. Atheism, agnosticism, theism are just labels at the end of the day. Besides, I don't think you have still understood the "burden of proof" concept from that last thread.

I read that article. Mental gymnastics at its best. But, lets say, its not. Let's say he is right in his assumptions. Wouldn't it have been the most practical to not use such a confusing verb in that sentence? Arabic is a fairly exhaustive language - surely there's an easier way to say "let your women go forth" than by using a word that implies beating them? But Allah knows best.

And the "beating" verse is quite compatible with several hadiths where the Prophet seemed to be okay with wife-beating. Via your logic - since my first interpretation of Quran espousing wife-beating and that being upheld by hadith - it surely means its Islamically valid (even though mental gymnasts may think otherwise)?

Derailed the thread quite a bit. I am calling-off myself from this particular discussion.

[F6_Turbo]

Originally Posted by Kashani-BD
all the muslims in Burma are being killed or removed from the country Burma, no need for protest, as they are finishing the muslims off.

second question, don't understand, can u explain it please.

What are you doing???

He asked about the statues of Buddha that the Taliban blew up in Afghanistan(bamiyan??)

Burma has nothing to do with it.

[Kashani-BD]

Originally Posted by F6_Turbo
What are you doing???

He asked about the statues of Buddah that the Taliban blew up in Afghanistan(bamiyan??)

Burma has nothing to do with it.

majority of the Buddha are in Burma, taliban blowing up statues in Afghan will ofcourse make the 95% population of buddha people angry in Burma. The are many reason's for the killing of innocent muslim's in Burma, if you reasearch it will help

[Banglatiger84]

Originally Posted by Kashani-BD
majority of the Buddha are in Burma, taliban blowing up statues in Afghan will ofcourse make the 95% population of buddha people angry in Burma. The are many reason's for the killing of innocent muslim's in Burma, if you reasearch it will help

Only a small % of Buddhists worldwide are Burmese, so yet another assertion of yours is wrong

[Kashani-BD]

I fear for Bangladesh my own country, Burma don't like us as we are providing shelter to those muslims that have left the country

[F6_Turbo]

Originally Posted by Kashani-BD
majority of the Buddha are in Burma, taliban blowing up statues in Afghan will ofcourse make the 95% population of buddha people angry in Burma. The are many reason's for the killing of innocent muslim's in Burma, if you reasearch it will help

I blame myself. I saw this coming...yet I chose to engage instead of walking away.

Lesson learned???

[Kashani-BD]

Originally Posted by Banglatiger84
Only a small % of Buddhists worldwide are Burmese, so yet another assertion of yours is wrong

I did not mention about worldwide, I said About 90 percent of Burma population is Buddhist.

Listen to this: War between Burma and Bangladesh soon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmYeUoDnmfw

Burman Muslims being burned, killed, slugged where is UN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ibO5...eature=related

-- very emotional video makes me cry--

[Banglatiger84]

Originally Posted by Kashani-BD
I did not mention about worldwide, I said About 90 percent of Burma population is Buddhist.

you said: majority of the Buddha are in Burma

which is supposed to mean that majority of Buddhists are in BurmaBut I understand what you were trying to express

[dash]

Originally Posted by Kashani-BD
I fear for Bangladesh my own country, Burma don't like us as we are providing shelter to those muslims that have left the country

i thought burma wants to send all rohinga to bangladesh so that there is no rohinga left in burma

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
Where are the Buddhist riots in response to the destruction of their holy relics by Muslims?
Where are the Christian riots in response to the persecution they face in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia?

Rioting is almost exclusively a product of a) having spare time with which to riot and b) not having much to lose when the consequences of rioting come down (arrest, injury, death).

Looking at the 1992 race riots in LA its interesting to note Magic Johnson didn't join the riots. Was he not black enough? Was he tacitly in agreement with the LAPD's use of excessive force on Rodney King? Come to think of it, none of the black people we know rioted. Not Colin Powell, not Bill Cosby, not even Dr Dre or Eazy E. In other words to riot you had be a) black, but you also had to be b) underpriviledged and c) feel that you were underpriviledged.

So for people to riot against Danish cartoons, or American movies, or Dutch "documentaries" one has to be Muslim, disenfranchised, and feel that they are disenfranchised. There's a reason why so many people cheered on Prothom Alo's comments section yet the streets of Dhaka are absolutely silent: far less risky to post on a website than face the RAB battalions!

So how come Jews don't riot?

Well there are only 15 million of them, and of that number 5 million live in the US and 7 million live in Israel and 2 million live in the EU...all highly developed countries where all Jews are highly enfranchised either directly, or via AIPAC/JDL/ADL. Jews don't need to riot because any sleight against them will eventually be avenged with almost certain probability (Adolph Eichmann).

So how come Christians don't riot?

Western Christians don't...usually. Ignoring the Catholic-Protestant strife in the UK. Western Christians don't react violently because as highlighted above, most are all well-off, even the poor get welfare...and there isn't a sense of disenfranchisement in their own countries. But does the absence of riots necessarily indicate the presence of peace and tolerance? Because even western Christians often incite to violence as in Robert Spencer's citation by Anders Behring Breivik, Ann Coulter's infamous "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" quote, and Tom Tancredo's "nuke Mecca" comments. As John Stewart once quipped..."so is it OK if I bring booze to Bob and Jack's wedding on Sunday in your town?"

Non-western Christians...ie those in poor countries are relatively much more likely to riot and incite to violence. Case in point Uganda with their Lord's Resistance Armies and their frequent attacks on homosexuals. My classmate Greg was doing volunteer work in Nairobi and couldn't control his lip when the church Pastor said his $1 dollar donation wasn't enough and got death threats as a result.

Why don't Buddhists riot?

Buddhism is almost exclusively confined to an area that is walled off to non-Buddhists. They also don't have hostile foreign intervention of some sort in majority of their countries, Tibet being the only example I can think of. Americans in South Korean and Taiwan don't count because they aren't hostile. Further Buddhist countries are very religiously homogenous (like Bangladesh which despite 150 million Muslims also doesn't see many protests, more on that later) and therefore there isn't any concept of being disenfranchised in their own country.

Now, where there is significant cross-reaction between Buddhists and non-Buddhists...we a see a more gruesome picture. In Sri Lanka the Tamil's have accused the Buddhist Sinhalese of not only discrimination but also genocide as well. In Burma the latest excerbation of decades long ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya started as a Buddhist riot in reaction to the rape of a Rakhine woman by 3 Rohingya men.

So why don't Hindus riot?

Hindus riot quite a bit actually. There are often riots against Christians in southern states such as Kerala and there are often riots against Muslims as reactions to slaughtered cows being placed on temple grounds. There were also mass riots against Sikhs throughout much of Khalistan movement through the 1980s.

Apart from that, once again 99% of the worlds Hindus live in a single country where they form the majority and thus the majority of them do not feel disenfranchised. The exception are right-wing groups such as the BJP, Shiv Sena, RSS and others and its no surprise that rioters identify with those groups.

So why don't Bangladeshi Muslims riot?

Unlike Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Libya, Yemen, Somalia...Bangladesh does not face overt hostile foreign intervention (drone strikes, troops on the ground, saber rattling threats, etc). Any foreign intervention Bangladesh faces (from India and Pakistan) is usually subvert and in fact invited by a large segment of the Bangladeshi populace itself.

[Kashani-BD]

Originally Posted by dash
i think burma wants to send all rohinga to bangladesh so that there is no rohinga left in burma

That is true bro, Majority of Rohinga people are muslims.

[dash]

Originally Posted by Kashani-BD
That is true bro, Majority of Rohinga people are muslims.

so why is burma angry if bd hosts them?

[Kashani-BD]

The US Ambassador gets killed in Libya and we jump and open a Thread.

When Big Officals are killed in the world without any reason or cause, why don't we open any thread or have any sort of debate, are american people more important than any other human being's in the world?

[Kashani-BD]

Originally Posted by dash
so why is burma angry if bd hosts them?

They wan't them dead, simple terms.

read more about those unheard poor muslims in burma

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ingya-refugees

[Banglatiger84]

Originally Posted by Kashani-BD
The US Ambassador gets killed in Libya and we jump and open a Thread.

When Big Officals are killed in the world without any reason or cause, why don't we open any thread or have any sort of debate, are american people more important than any other human being's in the world?

When was the last time an ambassador , of any country, was killed ?


Stop trying to create issues when there arent any, a thread was opened as this is considered a "big" event, not because "American people are more important"..

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
AF,

Your attempt at refueling of a resolved debate on what atheism is and isn't is rather pathetic. I won't address them. You can believe what you want. I have never revealed - nor will I - in this forum what I consider myself to be. Atheism, agnosticism, theism are just labels at the end of the day. Besides, I don't think you have still understood the "burden of proof" concept from that last thread.

Fine, but blatantly contradicting Merriam-Webster's definition is not mental gymnastics but correctly defining the term of the word daraba in the Quran is?

Surely you can recognize the outright hypocrisy of that? Can you at least agree that its largely unfair?

I read that article. Mental gymnastics at its best. But, lets say, its not. Let's say he is right in his assumptions. Wouldn't it have been the most practical to not use such a confusing verb in that sentence? Arabic is a fairly exhaustive language - surely there's an easier way to say "let your women go forth" than by using a word that implies beating them? But Allah knows best.

Thats the point...the word doesn't implying beating any more than the English sentence "please take your shirt off" implies violently beating it off with a hockey stick [which is not even physically possible].

And the "beating" verse is quite compatible with several hadiths where the Prophet seemed to be okay with wife-beating. Via your logic - since my first interpretation of Quran espousing wife-beating and that being upheld by hadith - it surely means its Islamically valid (even though mental gymnasts may think otherwise)?

But there's also the famous hadith that negates wife beating "...how can one of you have relations with your wife after you beat her like an animal?"

And you forgot to mention the apostacy issue. You're not even experiencing cognitive dissonace here...you're blatantly classifying proper defining of terms as mental gymnastics.

And there is a lot more on top of that...such as stoning to death of adulterers...NOT in the Quran.

[roman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9P1q9eyVnE

Very well said.