Islam - What's your view on it?

[ClydeYellow]

Going to have to explain Pakistan and Bangladesh vs India and Sri Lanka for this theory to hold water.

India (and by extension, Pakistan and Bangladesh) obtained its formal independence from the UK in 1947, and Ceylon (which would eventually become known as the State of Sri Lanka) in 1948 (although in the case of Sri Lanka it could be argued that factual independence was achieved when UK troops left the country in 1975)

.

 

[KSaiyu]

Which they all did, Ceylon in the early 70s (as you should well know), and India begat Pakistan begat Bangladesh in recent history. Why do you put them in contrast to each other?

The theory was that recent freedom from colonisation is what holds back Islamic states. It doesn't explain Sri Lanka and India's economic rise and relative stability (post civil war in Sri Lankas case) in comparison to Pakistan and Bangladesh.

India (and by extension, Pakistan and Bangladesh) obtained its formal independence from the UK in 1947, and Ceylon (which would eventually become known as the State of Sri Lanka) in 1948 (although in the case of Sri Lanka it could be argued that factual independence was achieved when UK troops left the country in 1975)

Precisely. So why the difference between the two Islamic states to the 2 non-Islamic. Indeed you don't see the Tamils crying about Chinese interference much like you see Muslims/liberals complaining about Western interference in Mid East.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Muslims in Nigeria burn down Sharia court over an alleged insult to Muhammad.

The alleged insult, quoting the AP, "Nyass is accused of saying that the long-dead leader of the Tijanniyah sect is more powerful than the revered prophet Muhammad."

The Nigerian police arrested Malam Abdul Nyass for his own protection, where he currently resides in a secure location. He is not expected to face charges.

As for the mob on the other hand, the protest turned peaceful once the fire was lit, but there were no reports of any arrests of the protesters.

H/T: Jihad Watch

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/nigeria-muslims-set-court-ablaze-over-insult-to-muhammad

 

[KSaiyu]

No duh

Jihadi threat requires move into 'private space' of UK Muslims, says police chief

Spare a thought for those working in education and in the communities.

 

[mustafur]

Freedom is an illusion.

The Extrimists can easily just target white ethnics for attacks instead and go completely under the radar, like what Isis has been doing in Aus.

Making a complete mockery of their obvious racial profiling targeting.

 

[KSaiyu]

Oh yeah.

This is a problem with Islam, and as such will need to be sorted out in the Mosques, Madrassas and the home. The state can't possibly "big brother" Muslims, or those listening to ISIS's message.

 

[ClydeYellow]

The theory was that recent freedom from colonisation is what holds back Islamic states. It doesn't explain Sri Lanka and India's economic rise and relative stability (post civil war in Sri Lankas case) in comparison to Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The Indo-Pakistani situation is a tad bit more complicated than you may think. I think I am qualified enough to say that religion is only a minor factor in it. Also, India has only recently achieved significant economic rise and political stability, and still has a long way to go before it can be considered economically developed or socially or economically stabile.

Also, my hypothesis wasn't that "recent freedom from colonisation is what holds back Islamic states", but rather that Western (Imperial first, and block-ist later on during the 20th century) intervention to keep ex-colonial countries in a position of economic subservience has created situations of political instability (which led to the rise of authoritarian governments, civil wars, and genocide in more than one case). That is true for Central America as much as it is for Africa or the Middle East.

An hypothesis that is also supported by the economic success and relative social and political stability of many prevalently Islamic countries in the Pacific area, like Malaysia and Indonesia.

Precisely. So why the difference between the two Islamic states to the 2 non-Islamic. Indeed you don't see the Tamils crying about Chinese interference much like you see Muslims/liberals complaining about Western interference in Mid East.

Hm, may have to do with the fact that the Chinese weren't the colonial masters of Ceylon before it achieved independence. Or that they didn't act like a superpower interested in exerting its political and economical power. Or it may be because Chinese intervention supported the status quo rather than bringing it down to replace it with a new equilibrium that is clearly favorable to their goals rather than to the goals of the Sri Lankan (or, for that matter, Tamil) people. Better yet, it may be because it's not history yet.

Also, talk with a Chilean about the West (or the North, as they're more likely to call it). See what they think about it.

Again, it seems to me like you're not even trying to really understand where the root of the problem is.

 

[ClydeYellow]

<Whoopsie, double post. My bad!>

 

[KSaiyu]

The Indo-Pakistani situation is a tad bit more complicated than you may think. I think I am qualified enough to say that religion is only a minor factor in it....

Religion is only a minor factor in the Indo-Pakistani situation?

 

[ClydeYellow]

Religion is only a minor factor in the Indo-Pakistani situation?

The Kashmir issue has been the main cause, whether direct or indirect, of all major conflicts between the two countries with the exception of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 where conflict originated due to turmoil in erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).

Yes, it is.

 

[Smurfybug]

Y'all know anyone Muslim on the forum? Then let's talk.

 

[KSaiyu]

Yes, it is.

Look up the reason for the Kashmir issue.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I did. I noticed that you have barely recognised the dissolution of the British Raj and the dispute between India and Kashmir over Kashmiri autonomy as contributing to the conflict.

 

[Scaff]

Look up the reason for the Kashmir issue.

Power and control of a region that was (and arguable still is) fertile for the region with excellent access to a number of other countries and historic control of a good number of the mountain passes.

While Kashmir as historically been a Muslim country it favoured linking with India over Pakistan during partition, on the basis that India was seen as the more stable and powerful of the two. This prompted Pakistain to invade and Kashmir to sign with India, the UN getting involved and resolution 47 coming to pass. Yes Hari Singh (who lead Kashmir at this time) was a Hindu, but Sheikh Abbdulah (who would be Prime Minister of the region and was the single most powerful popular leader at the time) was Muslim and also favored a link with India (actually both wanted an independent Kashmir, but knew it impossible and saw India as a more stable partner).

Religion was a factor in this, but it was a minor factor and the main root cause of the resulting conflicts over Kashmir was control of land. A problem caused by the British not considering the potential fall out of the Kashmir and Jumma regions during partition.

 

[KSaiyu]

Reason for the formation of Pakistan....

Religion was a factor in this, but it was a minor factor

Same as the Rohingya?
Same as the Uyghur?

I did. I noticed that you have barely recognised the dissolution of the British Raj and the dispute between India and Kashmir over Kashmiri autonomy as contributing to the conflict.

No because we're talking about why there is a dispute.

 

[Scaff]

Reason for the formation of Pakistan....


Same as the Rohingya?
Same as the Uyghur?

To provide a two state solution to a problem the British caused during its rule in India (In which the attacks by both sides were horrific to say the least), none of which automatically means that the cause of the Kashmir war was religion.

Partition was a solution that did avoid civil war in India (some of the roots for which were in the India act of 1935 - which granted a large degree of power to non-Muslim Indians - a situation that could have been avoided - particularity given that Muslims in India had dismissed the idea of a 'Pakinstan' two years earlier describing it as "chimerical and impracticable"), but was implemented so quickly that it was in itself a cause of massive problems. not helped but the British clearly favouring the Indian side (its influence over the Radcliffe line an example of this and the desire to keep Pakistan as small as possible an other).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No because we're talking about why there is a dispute.

And one of the reasons is because of the way the British Raj was divided up. Under the Mountbatten Plan there were several options as to how Jammu and Kashmir could be distributed between India and Pakistan. But because the Plan wasn't implemented properly, there was a dispute over the outcome.

There have also been accusations that Indian economic policy deliberately saw Kashmir's economic development go backwards, fuelling tension in the region.

 

[KSaiyu]

Ok, I have to ask. What is the major factor in the Arab Israeli wars?

Because we've gone from differences between Asian Muslim vs non Muslim countries to Kashmir

 

[Smurfybug]

Ok, I have to ask. What is the major factor in the Arab Israeli wars?

Because we've gone from differences between Asian Muslim vs non Muslim countries to Kashmir

Alright I'll tell you, so it all started with Saddam Hussein and his dumb mind. Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iran and Iraq somewhat had a fight but then Saddam started it by launching a missile. Now why did the Sunni and Shia Muslims somewhat not get along? Well, Sunni which I am, belive in the Prophet Muhammad and the Shia on the other hand believe on the decendents of Ali, the Prophets 4th Khalifa I think. The First one was Abu Bakar. The war ended August, 1988. Peace is restored there but people still fight. Over in Pakistan where I'm from is a whole different story. I'll tell that some other time

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Ok, I have to ask. What is the major factor in the Arab Israeli wars?

You're obviously angling for a particular response: "Muslims are the problem".

 

[Smurfybug]

You're obviously angling for a particular response: "Muslims are the problem".

Your not saying that yourself are you?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Your not saying that yourself are you?

No, I'm not. KSaiyu is simply trying to steer the conversation in that direction. He has been doing it for weeks in various threads. It's called begging the question, a logical fallacy where a pre-determined answer is phrased as a question so that the discussion goes in a particular direction. KSaiyu has a deep fear of Muslims, and has been trying to validate that opinion ever since.

 

[Smurfybug]

No, I'm not. KSaiyu is simply trying to steer the conversation in that direction. He has been doing it for weeks in various threads. It's called begging the question, a logical fallacy where a pre-determined answer is phrased as a question so that the discussion goes in a particular direction. KSaiyu has a deep fear of Muslims, and has been trying to validate that opinion ever since.

Saying that I'm Muslim my self which I am, I don't really understand why people automatically target us for various items which I will not list.

 

[KSaiyu]

You're obviously angling for a particular response: "Muslims are the problem".

You're obviously angling for a particular response: religion is the problem".

Alright I'll tell you, so it all started with Saddam Hussein and his dumb mind. Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iran and Iraq somewhat had a fight but then Saddam started it by launching a missile. Now why did the Sunni and Shia Muslims somewhat not get along? Well, Sunni which I am, belive in the Prophet Muhammad and the Shia on the other hand believe on the decendents of Ali, the Prophets 4th Khalifa I think. The First one was Abu Bakar. The war ended August, 1988. Peace is restored there but people still fight. Over in Pakistan where I'm from is a whole different story. I'll tell that some other time

Arab-Israeli

No, I'm not. KSaiyu is simply trying to steer the conversation in that direction. He has been doing it for weeks in various threads. It's called begging the question, a logical fallacy where a pre-determined answer is phrased as a question so that the discussion goes in a particular direction. KSaiyu has a deep fear of Muslims, and has been trying to validate that opinion ever since.

Cool story bro.

I sense much prejudice in you young padawan.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Saying that I'm Muslim my self which I am, I don't really understand why people automatically target us for various items which I will not list.

Because you're different. And people are always afraid of what they don't understand. Why do you think people are afraid of the dark? It's because they don't know what's in there. It could contain anything, or it could contain nothing.

It's the same with Muslims. People are afraid of what they don't understand - and fearing it is easier than understanding it.

 

[KSaiyu]

You, erm, you want to address the points instead of pontificating?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I did. Smurfybug asked why people automatically target Muslims; I offered a reason why.

 

[Smurfybug]

He's right, No one knows what we do as a Muslim. If you actually do some research then it'll show that I'm not a guy who has missiles aligned to go to the United States but I'm actually just like a you and the next guy who runs the next red light.

 

[KSaiyu]

No-one's attacking you here. You were made to believe that I was directing the conversation to say Muslims were the cause of Arab-Israeli strife whereas it is as simple as religious differences. It stemmed from finding a reason why India/Sri Lanka are doing relatively better compared to Pakistan/Bangladesh. I see you're from Pakistan so you would probably be in a good place to contribute.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Ok, I have to ask. What is the major factor in the Arab Israeli wars?

The Arab-Israeli wars had little to do with Islam and a lot to do with the Pan-Arabist design of Nasser, al-Sadat and their buddies. Which in its failing left the way open for religious fundamentalism - a good example of that would be the progressive loss of relevance of the PLO and the rise of Hamas (which isn't just a religious fundamentalist group, but I digress) in Palestine (or the dramatic assassination of al-Sadat himself by a member of the EIJ).

And need I remind you who funded many of the early Islamic jihadist groups in the 80s, especially in Afghanistan?