Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaalihahHusain)
    I understand where you are coming from and I agree that at times Iran and Saudi Arabia have not treated women in the best manner. However I must clarify for all that this has nothing to do with the religion Islam. I do not the specifics of the atrocious behavior you have mentioned, yet I can still certify that it is not justified by Islam. Before Islam, women were considered shameful, female children were buried alive, prostitution was rampant, divorce was only in the hands of the husband, inheritance was only for the strong, and oppression was widespread. Islam came and abolished these practices. Even now, in “developed countries”, women are not granted respect, dignity and honour, let alone equal pay for equal work. Islam, however, regards women as precious and valuable, not to be disrespected or disgraced. The mistreatment of women in some Middle-Eastern countries or Muslim families is due to cultural factors that some Muslims wrongly follow, not because of Islam. Why would many women around the world willingly enter Islam if it is an oppressive religion?
    You have great sentiment and caring views, but sadly an ignorant knowledge of Islam. I have an exam tomorrow so I am not going to comment further, but to say the least, I left Islam mainly because of the abhorrent misogyny in the Quran and Hadith. "Women are lacking mind and religion" said Muhammed. That's one of a thousand quotes of similar manner. You can very easily verify what I said if you really want to know the truth.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    It is true, as you say, that violence comes from men or women and individual Christians, or Buddhists or Muslims ya de ya can be exceptionally violent.

    But I put it to you that Islam is a more violent religion theologically than, say, Buddhism. Buddhism is extraordinarily peaceful and devoted to spiritual self improvement. You can't find any violence at all in the Four Noble Truths and Eight Fold Path. The opposite.

    Tibetan Buddhists protest against the Chinese occupation of their land not by a suicide bombing which kills their oppressors. But by self immolation. Setting themselves on fire alone.

    They are acting in accordance with what their religion teaches. Never to harm others.
    This is exactly what the Dhamma teaches! Though, the noble eightfold path is the fourth noble truth.

    Here, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....011.than.html.

    (Original post by offhegoes)
    There are bands of Buddhist monks as we speak killing men, women and children on religious grounds. I know little about Buddhist scripture, but Buddhist is clearly not immune from being a justification for violence.
    Okay, you need an R.E lesson as well as some info on world affairs. It's not your fault though, the leftists do love portraying the events in Burma as though it's all our doing.

    Yes, I'm a buddhist. A Theravadin to be more precise.

    Firstly, you need to understand what Buddhism is. It's more than an ideology, it's an entire way of life as well as being an extremely close knit global community. We don't even think of ourselves as Buddhists, Buddhism is just how we are and how we live our lives. There's three "pillars" in Buddhism. These are the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), the Dhamma (doctrine) and the Sangha (community). The Dhamma's far too long to explain in it's entirety and I'm a bit short on time atm, but here's some links to the relevant bits:

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...1.08.amar.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...1.07.piya.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...2.03.than.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...4.10.than.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...4.12.than.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...2.14.irel.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...2.01.than.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...1.10.than.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...1.04.than.html

    Don't worry, they're not that long.

    Now onto the situation in Burma. The Sangha there sees the Rohingya as foreigners and as invaders since they flooded into the country during the British occupation of it. Up until recently they were tolerated though. However, due to many incidents of Rohingya attacking Buddhists, they were confined to the Rakhine region to make the situation easier to deal with. What actually started the conflict was a Rohingya plot, it was discovered that they'd been planning to wipe out the Sangha in the Rakhine region. Genocide, in other words.

    Initially, three Buddhist women were abducted, raped and decapitated by Rohingyas. Shortly after, a monk was attacked. Now bear in mind that monks are very respected members of the Sangha, and that the Sangha is so close knit that other Buddhists feel like family. This attack was far more brutal than the initial one on those three women. The monk was a teacher at a local school he'd set up for the children in his village, which had about 200 students and just himself teaching. He was out buying more books for his students when Rohingya slashed the back of his head with a knife and pulled him off his bike. They then tore off his robes (which is just as bad to us as tearing off a woman's hijab is to moslems) and dragged him into the local mosque. There they threw acid in his face and burned him alive. Both incidents were unprovoked. There were many more such incidents as well.

    As you can imagine, the Sangha were absolutely livid (and rightly so). Imagine having that done to one of your family members - that's what it was like for them. Still, no one attacked the Rohingya. Later on one of the men who'd raped the aforementioned women was caught. When questioned, he confessed that Rohingya imams had been putting bounties on monks and women. Worse still, is that the bounties for women were only paid if the women had been raped as well as murdered. On investigating other local mosques it was found that this wasn't a one off case - the whole Rohingya community had been doing it.

    As Buddhists we try to refrain from violence, but when your countries' guests are planning the genocide of your people you have no choice but to defend yourself. Unfortunately, some people have been attacking Rohingya children as well as the murderous adults. But the Rohingya are doing the same to the Buddhists. The Sangha are fighting for their lives, not because of the Dhamma - they're actually going completely against it. Fortunately though, many temples in the Rakhine region have been protecting the few innocent Rohingya. It's always horrible when conflicts like this occur, and as Buddhists it's our duty to protect those who want no part in it, whether they're Rohingya or Buddhist.

    That's basically what the leftists don't want people to know. All around the world Buddhists are urging the Burmese Sangha to try and make peace with the Rohingya. We don't want anyone from either side to get hurt anymore. I should point out that this isn't representative of all other moslems. The Rohingya may be insane, but there are many nice moslems out there as well.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaalihahHusain)
    I understand where you are coming from and I agree that at times Iran and Saudi Arabia have not treated women in the best manner. However I must clarify for all that this has nothing to do with the religion Islam.
    Oh FFS! Do you expect anyone to take this seriously?

    The Saudi Arabian constitution IS the Quran and sunnah!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    You have great sentiment and caring views, but sadly an ignorant knowledge of Islam. I have an exam tomorrow so I am not going to comment further, but to say the least, I left Islam mainly because of the abhorrent misogyny in the Quran and Hadith. "Women are lacking mind and religion" said Muhammed. That's one of a thousand quotes of similar manner. You can very easily verify what I said if you really want to know the truth.
    I would much appreciate it if you could provide me with the source of your evidence because I have done a LOT of research on Islam, particularly the views it holds on women. I do not understand how you make this particular statement when Muhammad's wives themselves held such great status in mind and religion. Khadijah, his first wide, was a very successful business woman, which does not support the fact that Muhammad would say women are lacking in mind. He himself did trade for her at one point. In further regards to lacking in mind as well as religion, Aisha, another of the Muhammad's wives, was sought out by leading members of the community in both the time of the Muhammad's Companions, and of those who had spoken to and learned from them. Many jurists consulted her in order to benefit from her legal knowledge. Aisha related the fourth most Hadith at 2210 Hadith. This alone proves the status and knowledge she had in religion.
    Also, i hope you the very best in your exam tomorrow!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaalihahHusain)
    I would much appreciate it if you could provide me with the source of your evidence because I have done a LOT of research on Islam, particularly the views it holds on women. I do not understand how you make this particular statement when Muhammad's wives themselves held such great status in mind and religion. Khadijah, his first wide, was a very successful business woman, which does not support the fact that Muhammad would say women are lacking in mind. He himself did trade for her at one point. In further regards to lacking in mind as well as religion, Aisha, another of the Muhammad's wives, was sought out by leading members of the community in both the time of the Muhammad's Companions, and of those who had spoken to and learned from them. Many jurists consulted her in order to benefit from her legal knowledge. Aisha related the fourth most Hadith at 2210 Hadith. This alone proves the status and knowledge she had in religion.
    Also, i hope you the very best in your exam tomorrow!


    Typical daft muslim talking about stuff he doesn't know and needing Non-muslims to educate them about their own religion.


    You realise that Muhammed married Khadijah BEFORE islam, before he had his first supposed revelation, so talking about Khadijah in a way to try and make Islam look good is not only sheer ignorance but very stupid
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Oh FFS! Do you expect anyone to take this seriously?

    The Saudi Arabian constitution IS the Quran and sunnah!
    Your point is? Just because their constitution is the Quran and sunnah it does not mean that all of the wrong actions that happen in that country are from the Qur'an and Sunnah. I mean the Prince of Saudi was found drug trafficking but that is NOT part of the Qur'an or Sunnah. Messed up things go on in Saudi yet they get away with it, from my perspective, simply due to money along with other things. As said in https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-i...ran-and-Sunnah, these countries have hypocritical government which have different laws for different people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    This is exactly what the Dhamma teaches! Though, the noble eightfold path is the fourth noble truth.

    Here, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....011.than.html.



    Okay, you need an R.E lesson as well as some info on world affairs. It's not your fault though, the leftists do love portraying the events in Burma as though it's all our doing.

    Yes, I'm a buddhist. A Theravadin to be more precise.

    Firstly, you need to understand what Buddhism is. It's more than an ideology, it's an entire way of life as well as being an extremely close knit global community. We don't even think of ourselves as Buddhists, Buddhism is just how we are and how we live our lives. There's three "pillars" in Buddhism. These are the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), the Dhamma (doctrine) and the Sangha (community). The Dhamma's far too long to explain in it's entirety and I'm a bit short on time atm, but here's some links to the relevant bits:

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...1.08.amar.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...1.07.piya.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...2.03.than.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...4.10.than.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...4.12.than.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...2.14.irel.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...2.01.than.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...1.10.than.html
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...1.04.than.html

    Don't worry, they're not that long.

    Now onto the situation in Burma. The Sangha there sees the Rohingya as foreigners and as invaders since they flooded into the country during the British occupation of it. Up until recently they were tolerated though. However, due to many incidents of Rohingya attacking Buddhists, they were confined to the Rakhine region to make the situation easier to deal with. What actually started the conflict was a Rohingya plot, it was discovered that they'd been planning to wipe out the Sangha in the Rakhine region. Genocide, in other words.

    Initially, three Buddhist women were abducted, raped and decapitated by Rohingyas. Shortly after, a monk was attacked. Now bear in mind that monks are very respected members of the Sangha, and that the Sangha is so close knit that other Buddhists feel like family. This attack was far more brutal than the initial one on those three women. The monk was a teacher at a local school he'd set up for the children in his village, which had about 200 students and just himself teaching. He was out buying more books for his students when Rohingya slashed the back of his head with a knife and pulled him off his bike. They then tore off his robes (which is just as bad to us as tearing off a woman's hijab is to moslems) and dragged him into the local mosque. There they threw acid in his face and burned him alive. Both incidents were unprovoked. There were many more such incidents as well.

    As you can imagine, the Sangha were absolutely livid (and rightly so). Imagine having that done to one of your family members - that's what it was like for them. Still, no one attacked the Rohingya. Later on one of the men who'd raped the aforementioned women was caught. When questioned, he confessed that Rohingya imams had been putting bounties on monks and women. Worse still, is that the bounties for women were only paid if the women had been raped as well as murdered. On investigating other local mosques it was found that this wasn't a one off case - the whole Rohingya community had been doing it.

    As Buddhists we try to refrain from violence, but when your countries' guests are planning the genocide of your people you have no choice but to defend yourself. Unfortunately, some people have been attacking Rohingya children as well as the murderous adults. But the Rohingya are doing the same to the Buddhists. The Sangha are fighting for their lives, not because of the Dhamma - they're actually going completely against it. Fortunately though, many temples in the Rakhine region have been protecting the few innocent Rohingya. It's always horrible when conflicts like this occur, and as Buddhists it's our duty to protect those who want no part in it, whether they're Rohingya or Buddhist.

    That's basically what the leftists don't want people to know. All around the world Buddhists are urging the Burmese Sangha to try and make peace with the Rohingya. We don't want anyone from either side to get hurt anymore. I should point out that this isn't representative of all other moslems. The Rohingya may be insane, but there are many nice moslems out there as well.
    So some Buddhists are involved in a bloody conflict with others with different religious views, whilst most Buddhists wish for peace?

    Sounds like Islam.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    So some Buddhists are involved in a bloody conflict with others with different religious views, whilst most Buddhists wish for peace?

    Sounds like Islam.


    It's different because the buddhist religion condemns Any form of Violence whilst Islam promotes it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Is it possible to be a rightie and a muslim, because thats basically me and most of my family.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    So some Buddhists are involved in a bloody conflict with others with different religious views, whilst most Buddhists wish for peace?

    Sounds like Islam.
    Lol, I guess it does a bit.

    The difference is that the Buddhists there aren't fighting because of Buddhism, they're fighting because the Rohingya want to wipe them out. On the other hand, the Rohingya want to wipe them out because of Islam. The Qu'ran has many verses encouraging violence towards non-Muslims and the Rohingya are following them.

    My point is that to pin the conflict on Buddhism as an ideology is just plain stupid, especially since the ideology actually promotes the exact opposite of what's taking place. In reality, the whole thing was started by Islamic ideology.

    (Original post by Listers)
    It's different because the buddhist religion condemns Any form of Violence whilst Islam promotes it.
    This. Buddhism and Islam are polar opposites. Buddhism is a religion of peace, Islam is a religion of war.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Lol, I guess it does a bit.

    The difference is that the Buddhists there aren't fighting because of Buddhism, they're fighting because the Rohingya want to wipe them out. On the other hand, the Rohingya want to wipe them out because of Islam. The Qu'ran has many verses encouraging violence towards non-Muslims and the Rohingya are following them.

    My point is that to pin the conflict on Buddhism as an ideology is just plain stupid, especially since the ideology actually promotes the exact opposite of what's taking place. In reality, the whole thing was started by Islamic ideology.



    This. Buddhism and Islam are polar opposites. Buddhism is a religion of peace, Islam is a religion of war.
    War, rape, deceit (Allah says he's the best at deceit), Violence, prejudice (Muhammed called Ethiopians raising heads and turks people who look like heated shields), discrimination) etc
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordPenguinz)
    Haha yes its the dumbest **** ever.

    Whenever a Muslim rapes someone or throws a gay off a roof leftists love to come to their defense and remind everyone 'its not all Muslims' but love to accuse all white men as being rapists. I suppose it just shows how stupid and ignorant they are of how backwards the Muslim world is.
    (Original post by godofwine)
    I don't think it's right to generalize a group of people like you've done. Most muslims are peaceful and don't behave like that.
    lmao
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaalihahHusain)
    I would much appreciate it if you could provide me with the source of your evidence because I have done a LOT of research on Islam, particularly the views it holds on women. I do not understand how you make this particular statement when Muhammad's wives themselves held such great status in mind and religion. Khadijah, his first wide, was a very successful business woman, which does not support the fact that Muhammad would say women are lacking in mind. He himself did trade for her at one point. In further regards to lacking in mind as well as religion, Aisha, another of the Muhammad's wives, was sought out by leading members of the community in both the time of the Muhammad's Companions, and of those who had spoken to and learned from them. Many jurists consulted her in order to benefit from her legal knowledge. Aisha related the fourth most Hadith at 2210 Hadith. This alone proves the status and knowledge she had in religion.
    Also, i hope you the very best in your exam tomorrow!
    Thank you very much I am not saying Muhammed hated women, he loved his wives no doubt. He did, like the Quran, suppose an inequality between men and women. The idea of female sex slaves "Melk Al-Yameen", the Hadith I mentioned above and the fact that Women have half the testimony of a man are all evidence. If you can read Arabic, the sources are quoted here :http://bayanelislam.net/Suspicion.aspx?id=03-03-0050
    If not, it says that the hadith was quoted by Bukhari and Muslim.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Lol, I guess it does a bit.

    The difference is that the Buddhists there aren't fighting because of Buddhism, they're fighting because the Rohingya want to wipe them out. On the other hand, the Rohingya want to wipe them out because of Islam. The Qu'ran has many verses encouraging violence towards non-Muslims and the Rohingya are following them.

    My point is that to pin the conflict on Buddhism as an ideology is just plain stupid, especially since the ideology actually promotes the exact opposite of what's taking place. In reality, the whole thing was started by Islamic ideology.



    This. Buddhism and Islam are polar opposites. Buddhism is a religion of peace, Islam is a religion of war.


    "My point is that to pin the conflict on Buddhism as an ideology is just plain stupid, especially since the ideology actually promotes the exact opposite of what's taking place. In reality, the whole thing was started by Islamic ideology"

    I would agree with this, as if you replace the Buddhists with any group and the Muslims with any group the group being attacked would have all the right to defend themselves.


    I also find Buddhism very interesting as a lot of what it teaches is sensible and out of all the religions seems like a pretty decent way of living your life, especially the whole Idea of the middle path saying that extremism is bad it is something that everyone should abide by.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    "My point is that to pin the conflict on Buddhism as an ideology is just plain stupid, especially since the ideology actually promotes the exact opposite of what's taking place. In reality, the whole thing was started by Islamic ideology"

    I would agree with this, as if you replace the Buddhists with any group and the Muslims with any group the group being attacked would have all the right to defend themselves.


    I also find Buddhism very interesting as a lot of what it teaches is sensible and out of all the religions seems like a pretty decent way of living your life, especially the whole Idea of the middle path saying that extremism is bad it is something that everyone should abide by.
    That's actually why I follow it. 90% of the Dhamma is just a mixture of common decency, common sense and psychology which has actually been proven via PET scans and other sciencey stuff. It's oxymoronic putting "proven" and a religion together like that though, my guess is the Buddha was just a genius who got really lucky. The other 10% is all the spiritual stuff about rebirth etc. That's all a load of tosh though.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    That's actually why I follow it. 90% of the Dhamma is just a mixture of common decency, common sense and psychology which has actually been proven via PET scans and other sciencey stuff. It's oxymoronic putting "proven" and a religion together like that though, my guess is the Buddha was just a genius who got really lucky. The other 10% is all the spiritual stuff about rebirth etc. That's all a load of tosh though.
    The thing about Karma is that I view it not as some supernatural force but the ways that society governs itself and how people view each other and the constant bias that everyone has about everyone. and how your own actions even if no one knows about them you will always know and that will change you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Listers)
    Typical daft muslim talking about stuff he doesn't know and needing Non-muslims to educate them about their own religion.


    You realise that Muhammed married Khadijah BEFORE islam, before he had his first supposed revelation, so talking about Khadijah in a way to try and make Islam look good is not only sheer ignorance but very stupid
    Or so you say. Yes, thank you anyway, I am well aware of that fact, yet it does not change anything. Khadijah did not change after the first supposed revelation or Islam, not did her status or anything else about her. However, if you don't want to talk about Khadijah, then don't. But are you going to tell me that Aisha was also married to the Muhammad before the supposed first revelation of Islam? If you want to talk about women who came after the revelation of Islam then fine, Umm Salama is a muslim woman who's counsel was accepted by Muhammad himself, and Hafsa, daughter of Umar ibn Al-Khattab was also a muslim woman yet she was the first person to be entrusted with the written Qur’an after the death of her father.
    Also who said I was a muslim? People can love several types of history.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaalihahHusain)
    Or so you say. Yes, thank you anyway, I am well aware of that fact, yet it does not change anything. Khadijah did not change after the first supposed revelation or Islam, not did her status or anything else about her. However, if you don't want to talk about Khadijah, then don't. But are you going to tell me that Aisha was also married to the Muhammad before the supposed first revelation of Islam? If you want to talk about women who came after the revelation of Islam then fine, Umm Salama is a muslim woman who's counsel was accepted by Muhammad himself, and Hafsa, daughter of Umar ibn Al-Khattab was also a muslim woman yet she was the first person to be entrusted with the written Qur’an after the death of her father.
    Also who said I was a muslim? People can love several types of history.
    All those women you mentioned have nothing to do with the fact that Muhammed himself said that Women in general are mentally deficient in comparison to Men, also morally deficient as most of the inhabitants of hell are women, amongst many other vile things he did to women, like constantly rape his female captives, commanding his followers to do the same, trading multiple female slaves for one slave etc etc.


    Your imam will never tell you any of this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Was the Aisha you mention the one that the Muhammad had sex with when she was nine years old?


    rekt
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shakeebshams)
    Hindustan?
    Call it what you like. Point being, that India in it's modern sense, was created in 1947.

    (Original post by shakeebshams)
    Anyway, next time you go to India, make sure to visit Thiruvananthapuram. Beautiful city fam.
    Never been. But will make sure I do so.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up sugar, or salt?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.