Not a member? Register now!
Announcements
Manga returns! Catch up with the details. Enjoy downloading, translating, and scanlating manga HERE legally!
Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter! Celebrate another year with MH and read our yearbook.
Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (8/18/14 - 8/24/14).
Forum News: Visit new sections for Nisekoi and Kingdom!
Translations: Gintama 507 by Bomber D Rufi
New Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 17 of 17

Thread: Muslim protesters torch Buddhist temples

  1. #16
    MH Senpai 英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member Ancy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Quaria
    Country
    Water Tribe
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    2,146
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Muslim protesters torch Buddhist temples

    Quote Originally Posted by Zehahaha View Post
    As for the death penalty thing, it is a misunderstanding, I'll try to sum it as much as possible, Arabic is a complex language with many many words, the word " الردَّة " means apostasy, but there's two things to take into account : " الخروج من الإسلام " which means not believing in Islam anymore and " الخروج على الإسلام " which means scheming against Islam and trying to hurt the muslim community. For the first case, there's no penalty at all, it is an individual choice that is made by the person, in which he didn't intend any harm to the community, the second case is the opposite, as he does intend to harm the community, in which the death penalty is the punishement.
    That's probably your interpretation. However, the historic details point to a different meaning. The most reasonable examples to consider are:
    1. Muhammad's example
    After gaining a large number of followers, Muhammad returned to Mecca to take over the city and cleanse it from pagan idols --> to me this sounds like an offensive technique rather than a defensive one.
    2. The rule of force implemented by the Ottoman empire (which was an Islamic organization at core)
    I'm not even going to mention which methods have been applied when conquering the countries from South East Europe , North Africa and Arabia.
    "I'm a legal alien in the Netherlands "

  2. #17
    Registered User MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted Imperium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Country
    Singapore
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    5,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Muslim protesters torch Buddhist temples

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancy View Post
    That's probably your interpretation. However, the historic details point to a different meaning. The most reasonable examples to consider are:
    1. Muhammad's example
    After gaining a large number of followers, Muhammad returned to Mecca to take over the city and cleanse it from pagan idols --> to me this sounds like an offensive technique rather than a defensive one.
    2. The rule of force implemented by the Ottoman empire (which was an Islamic organization at core)
    I'm not even going to mention which methods have been applied when conquering the countries from South East Europe , North Africa and Arabia.
    I actually didnt want to get into this but I'm bored so...And you were mixing a discussion about apostasy with other stuff.

    1) This has no bearing on apostasy. The people in Mecca were not Muslims. Nevertheless you are also simplifying what was a a state of war at the time and the invasion and conquest of Mecca was a result of the breaking of the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The destruction of the idols was an act of war, it was also used to signify an important aspect for the prophet, that his god was the true path.

    To expand, the pagan gods of Mecca were considered to be the protectors of the city, the resulting conquest of Mecca and destruction of the idols was to signify that they do not exist that this muslim god was superior and for the Quraysh especially to accept that their gods could no longer protect them. It was this point that brought - along with the clemency - converted many former enemies like Abu Sufyan to Islam. It was a brilliant stroke of political manoeuvring.

    2) This has nothing to do with apostasy. The Ottomans for example began their conquests 7 centuries after the death of the prophet. The Ottomans were conquering countries because they believed they were former Muslims and deserved death? No.

    The results and actions of any Islamic state (of which there were many) are political actions that should be seen in the same light as any empire or kingdom that has existed. The need to expand, subjugate and conquer are motives used by men who seek power, glory and riches. The brutality of Christian colonial empires are not a reflection of Christianity. They are a reflection of the adherents of that religion at that particular time. It is the same thing.

    Like any empire at the time they were fought wars and subjugated people. So was Timur in his conquests. Or Babur etc. In contrast, the expansion of Islam into East Africa and South East Asia were peaceful and through trade. The spread of Islam was at times peaceful and at times completely brutal. These are not a result of a religious ideal but human nature.

    A good book to read if you ever want to learn about this stuff is A History of Islamic Societies by Ira. M. Lapidus.

  3. Like 2 Member(s) likes this post
New Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts