70 jawans killed in biggest Maoists/Naxal attack ever in India

[Kriterion]

Kriterion' date=' you are 'debating' with a guy who has sung praises of Gandhi in this very thread comparing him to Buddha, and trashed him in numerous other threads on ICF.....just giving you an idea of the level of moronity you are up against here. [/quote'] My brother, I have been here for a while though I don't post often. I know of Boss from the days of the old forum. I know his tactics very well. I have seen him "debate" for lack of a better word (lol) with Shwetabh, Marirs Mania, CC1981, with you, etc. None of whom are "muslims", indicating that he has a problem with anyone who doesn't ascribe to his world views. I am very aware of his viewpoints concerning Gandhi... I am also aware of him claiming to answer questions/contradictions that are posited to/pointed out to him, and then never actually providing it. He says:

Iam aware of it ... and unlike you I can sit and explain without hurling silly smilies and throwing stones and running away. Growup.

...but wait up...he never gives the answer! Just that he has it. He told me once a couple of years ago that what he gave me was just the "tip of the iceburg" and that he a lot more coming, which he never provided. That was like back in 2008. I don't doubt he has an never-ending supply of propoganda, but Boss has a habit of discussional lethargy. This is a man who claims to follow "science" yet then we have this post of his from just a few weeks back: http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1162430&postcount=56. And then on this very thread, he claimed that semen is a creation of testes, instead of coming from the prostate, and bulbourethral glands, and the seminal vesicles. I'm very well aware that apart from Sandtest, Dadarocks, and a few other pathalogically inept, no one puts any stock into his words. Which is why its hilarious that he keeps asking me to ask other ICF members on whether the fallibility of Islamic scholars is unreasonable or not. As if rationality is based on the opinions of random pollsters...

[Kriterion]

Kriterion there is no need to get personal ... but here are your main gripes : I did (and you even replied to them but now you forget ) and they are here : http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=467552&postcount=53 http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1157376&postcount=379 in there you will find further links and material to the "lot more" you were looking for.

oh, i already answered them? i don't remember. i'll look into the additional tripe you've provided in a moment... btw, i don't think anything is personal...everything's out in the open. you have access to everything thats been said and you can answer any "personal attacks" you believe have been leveled your way. its just a matter of two guys amusing themselves at what can most aptly be likened to a cage match between a UFC champion and a toddler who has all 4 limbs tied together. Feel free to make fun of me for answering every point you've ever brought up. Or how I've failed to flip flop between science and religion. I'm sure you can find good company with the other few guys on here who *think* the same way you do.

feel free to provide us evidence as to how all of them were wrong and that only you are right atleast (w.r.t 54:1 ) and how this rule of fallibility is not applicable to you.

Here is the evidence (already given to Ravi a few posts above). But I know your answer...its going to be more wriggling to get away from the undeniable reality. How do i know? Because dispite your penchant for discussion, the fact that out of 14,000+ posts at least half of them have to do with the "ROP Big Green Machine" there are a whole host of issues that you simply are not "willing to discuss". Have you ever stopped to wonder why after discussing so much under the sun, there are certain things you won't even consider discussing? Its because even your warped sense of thought isn't FUBAR enough to bend reality into something that fits your world view. but here again is my take on 54:1, which completely obliterates the interpretation that the scholars have on it...

Boss has cited Quran verse 54:1 which states "The Hour approached, and the moon was Split". His argument is that this proves that Muhammad claimed to perform miracles. And therefore the Quran contradicts itself since I claimed that "the quran says Muhammad cannot or will not perform any miracles, per se". Well it turns out, that I was wrong. The Quran actually does NOT ever lay stake to that claim. Did Muhammad split the Moon? Well maybe. If Moses split the red sea and Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead, then all things are possible, since God (the vehicle of a "miracle") is of infinite power and might. Can I prove any of these things? No, I can't, much as I would love to. Can anyone prove it did not happen? Pretty much. There are no accounts from anywhere else in the world of the Moon magically splitting into 2 completely different pieces around that time. In other words, Muhammad, according to Boss claimed to split the Moon when in fact he didn't. Now, how any rational person, and by "rational" i mean mentally competent from a pyschiatric or medical standpoint, can claim to perform a miracle in front of thousands of people, when he knows for a fact he cannot, is what I'd like to ask Boss. This has nothing to do with scholars or interpretations. Boss has offered up holy men such as Sai Baba and other optical illusionists as an incorrect example that "yes, this is possible". But its not a valid comparison because Sai Baba and others like David Copperfield at least provide the ILLUSION of their "miracles". Magic does not exist. So how Muhammad, in the absence of Divine help, could offer the illusion of the Moon splitting is also a question I'd like to ask. So this leads us to one of only 2 logical possibilities: 1) Muhammad was "crazy" (i.e schizophrenic) 2) Muhammad never claimed to split the Moon, and the past tense of verse 54:1 was a verse of prophecy similar to the Biblical book of Revelation, entirely written in the past tense by the Apostle Paul. Was Muhammad a schizophrenic? Probably not. Schizophrenia generally does not have such a late onset, usually manifesting itself in a persons' teen-age years or when they're in early adulthood. Muhammad did not start receiving his revelations until age 40. Most important is the fact that schizophrenia is a socially debilitating disease. It does not get better, and it inevitably results in a person being unable to perform his occupation (preaching), affects on his relationship with friends and family (none of which exist, according to the documentation). In fact, Muhammad's case was the opposite. He went from leading a bunch of rag-tag ex-slaves, to achieving military and bloodless victory over a vast area just before his death. A person suffering from schizophrenic hallucinations is simply not capable of achieving this kind of worldy success against all numerical and logistical odds. Even the hadith, the ones which can be believed, paint a picture of a fairly lucid individual. Again, one does not need to rely on scholars for their interpretation to understand this, yet Boss is not willing to acknowledge that. I will bring this up, and ask him, where we need a religious scholar to shed some light on what I have posted above. You see a person who is neutral, won't care. "So what if Muhammad is not a schizophrenic? Doesn't mean I have to believe him..." However, Boss has an agenda, one which he will openly attest to, although he will not confirm or deny its logical implications. The logical implication is that Boss will be wholly unable or unwilling to discuss the above situation, precisely because there is no room for bringing "scholars" into the debate. He knows my position very well. He knows I disagree with much of what the scholars say, when it can't be backed up by neutral evidence. Yet he insists on a need to discuss scholars, knowing full well my position. It is nothing short of an attempt at "fixing" the debate because he knows he cannot win. I'm a pretty rational guy. I have purposely not debated the actions of Muslims throughout history, I have NEVER disputed with Boss on the heinous violence perpetrated by my co-religionists and those who claim to be my co-religionists throughout history after the death of Muhammad. However, Boss is not satisfied. He wishes to assert that the Quran is the source of this, rather an a misinterpretation of the Quran. As a result he is yet to give me an acceptable answer on why the Quran mandates war for one group of "disbelievers" in verse 9:5, but advocates peace with another group in the very preceding verse, 9:4. And btw, its a very simple question, one which does not require any scholar for interpreting. Have a look at it yourself. That is exactly what Boss' tactics have been anytime he faces something uncomfortable he attempts to wriggle away with "Oh, I'm not a scholar and i don't understand a lick of arabic...so I can't comment". But one mention of the word "Kashmir" and all of a sudden a Middle East expert appears out of nowhere armed with chapter and verse.

You have already stated your unwillingness to discuss this. This is precisely one of the reasons why Outsider refers to your "moronicity". Its not because you hold opinions which are not agreed to by most, its because you simply do not respond to certain things, often times by the oft-repeated refrain "i have an answer..." and then you never provide that answer. You don't even bother to offer a simple one-word answer...complete avoidance is what we usually get. I am going to attempt to coerce and answer out of you. As far as me claiming to be "infallible", i'll give you billion dollars which i don't have - which means if you're right, I will work as your personal slave till the day i die - if you can show me where i've claimed to be perfect. I think my few admissions of mistakes here and there are proof enough to the contrary. But perhaps we need an islamic scholar to figure out the interpretation of that too...

[Kriterion]

I did (and you even replied to them but now you forget ) and they are here : http://indiancricketfans.com/showpos...2&postcount=53 http://indiancricketfans.com/showpos...&postcount=379 in there you will find further links and material to the "lot more" you were looking for.

I applaud you for the courage of not running way and I can only plead and beg that you adopt this same attitude towards some of the other questions I posed to you above. The link you provided - http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/quran.htm#H - no longer works. If you can find me another acceptable list (from the many that abound on the internet), I'll be happy to look into them.

[Kriterion]

That is YOUR interpretation of my post which is flawed. If you read the post and its context ... I clearly give examples that cant be answered by science YET and those are the aspects that are handled by religion. Once science finds answers to those I will obviously take the scientific explanation. In the meanwhile Iam happy with the answers given by spirituality. And keep in mind that Iam not talking about things like splitting the moon.

So if you believe that science and hinduism contradict one another, and you put more credibility on science, doesn't this mean that you are not the strict "literalist" Hindu that you claim to be? Furthermore, if Islam is a false religion for *supposedly* violating science, doesn't that mean that Hinduism also is false if it violates empirical evidence and science, which you claim that it in fact does? In other words, are you perhaps the victim of the "cognitive dissonance" you spoke about several posts earlier?

There is far more wild stuff in Hinduism which science tells you is not possible and I dont get bent out of shape trying to fit a sqaure peg in a round hole like you do.

So if you aren't experiencing any cognitive dissonance, this must mean you aren't really a Hindu, except perhaps socially, culturally, and politically, and you are comfortable with the fact that you no longer believe in the religious aspects of Hinduism. Is this an accurate assessment?

[seedhi]

Kriterion' date=' you are 'debating' with a guy who has sung praises of Gandhi in this very thread comparing him to Buddha, and trashed him in numerous other threads on ICF.....just giving you an idea of the level of moronity you are up against here. [/quote']What is wrong with that? Every person has multiple facets - and Gandhi was not perfect. It is perfectly fine to praise Gandhi in some context and criticize him in another.

[Kriterion]

You want to discuss Quran based on widely acknowledged scholars and how it is practiced by Muslims by and large ... I will debate with you till we finish every single verse or the controversial ones. Thats a promise. However Iam simply not interested in discussing YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION of those verses. So decide and let me know.

Well, in that case, this is not a direct interpretation of those verses. We have already seen that the scholars have effed up on that front...why you want to discuss something with me that I already agree with you on is beyond me - oh wait, now i get it...you want to fix the discussion and then declare yourself the winner. This is an indirect interpretation by way of studying the implications of your take on the verse(s) in question. That is to say, that using logic - which you cannot claim is inapplicable to religion or to Islam since you yourself apply it to Hindu beliefs - one has to accept that either Muhammad was schizophrenic/delusional or he did split the moon, or he meant something else by the term "the Hour". The only time logic doesn't apply, is where the laws of physics are unknown to us...e.g like inside a Black Hole. 7th century Arabia, or this internet forum do not count as such places. So your insistance of abandoning logic in favor of a scholars' delusions is itself a concession of defeat or at the very least an admission of your inability to discuss this further. I am giving you every opportunity to argue against the logic i have presented; present your own logic. But you keep refusing. How else am I supposed to interpret that, except that you are unable?

We are not into this peurile bulldust about proving my pr!ck is bigger than all others .... the concept of religion is purely for spiritual purposes to give you a peace of mind and better karma. Most Hindus ( with rare exceptions ) simply dont care what anybody else says or thinks about their religion.

Fair enough. However once again you are bragging about something you aren't a part of. You don't care what other religions say, or aren't interested in comparing them, yet you seem to have a problem with Muslim Indians living under their own cultural laws, even to the extent that they don't affect anyone outside of the faith. Is this not so?

You and 99% of Muslims will simply never get this but even if I dont participate in all the rituals , rules and stuff written in holy books mandated by my religion I can still be a perfect Hindu. For example I dont have to believe that a demon with 10 faces actually existed and that Lord Ram vanquished him. what is important here is the lessons and spirit behind those holy books not the specifics (such as is there a species with 10 faces) and whether they confirm with science.

Of course I believe that it is mathematically impossible to be a "perfect" believer when disbelieves a large portion of their scriptures, but that is the right of each individual to believe as they see fit. Many muslims would have issues with my beliefs. All I wanted to know was whether or not you truly believed in Hinduism. This particular discussion ends has served its purpose and there is no point in carrying it further.

This is the exact opposite from Islam where you are required to buy into the entire shebang in toto without exception.

There isn't anything overly wacky in the Quran. Not unless you consider semen issuing from pelvic organs instead of the testicles. But then again, science proves that to be correct centuries after Muhammad's time. The wackiest things one can think of then, are Moses splitting the Red Sea, Jesus bringing Lazarus back from the death, and Muhammad's night journey. However, none of these involve elements which can be scientifically tested. Hence while they cannot be proven correct, they also cannot be proven false. If an Absolute God exists - and that is the ultimate question - then there is little question of whether He could allowed His servants to have performed such "miracles", including the alleged "moon splitting". But in order to discredit that one has to prove that God doesn't exist.

[Kriterion]

What is wrong with that? Every person has multiple facets - and Gandhi was not perfect. It is perfectly fine to praise Gandhi in some context and criticize him in another.

that would have been valid if he had been praising Gandhi for his non-violence and criticizing him for his sleeping with young children. however he was singing gandhi's praises of non-violence, while in other contexts ranting against that sorty of "pussification", to use his own term IIRC, as some sort of example of the problems that modern India is facing today. in other words he wants to not only eat his pie, but save it too, and then give it to his friends as well. and that is just a single example of utter ridiculousness he's subjected us to. his repeated refusal to answer straightforward questions is another example.

[The Outsider]

What is wrong with that? Every person has multiple facets - and Gandhi was not perfect. It is perfectly fine to praise Gandhi in some context and criticize him in another.

For the same facet ie. ahimsa?

[seedhi]

that would have been valid if he had been praising Gandhi for his non-violence and criticizing him for his sleeping with young children. however he was singing gandhi's praises of non-violence, while in other contexts ranting against that sorty of "pussification", to use his own term IIRC, as some sort of example of the problems that modern India is facing today. in other words he wants to not only eat his pie, but save it too, and then give it to his friends as well. and that is just a single example of utter ridiculousness he's subjected us to. his repeated refusal to answer straightforward questions is another example.

From what I understand, he has given the example of ahimsa preached by Gandhi as a superior philosophy than what Mohammad preached. But in other contexts he is perfectly entitled to criticize Gandhi for ignoring the practical reality - which was that the refusal of a section of the society led by Jinnah to remain within the boundaries of ahmisa. I mean it is perfectly logical to argue that ahima/non-violence is an eminently desirable principle for a society to follow. But it can succeed only if everyone abides by it. However, if someone declares you as an enemy and is bent upon violence to subjugate you, then it is your duty to resist it by appropriate means. Gandhi was guilty of ignoring the reality of the butchering Hindus had suffered in Bengal and other places while calling on them to essentially suffer in silence. While non-violence has succeeded to some extent against the British, it had no hope of stopping the violence that accompanied partition and Gandhi obstinately refused to acknowledge this. Consider the country of Switzerland for example. It has adopted ahimsa in the sense that it never participated in any of the great wars of 20th century. But this policy was only successful because none of its neighbors chose to invade it and respected its neutrality. However, had France or Germany ever chosen to invade it, the Swiss would have been perfectly justified to oppose it with appropriate means, violent if need be. As far as I can see, Islam does not propound such a philosophy of live and let live. It enjoins upon Islamic states to expand their boundaries through violence if need be. This has been going on from the time of Mohammad himself. I definitely agree with the contention that such an expansionist ideology is inferior to the path of ahimsa or live and let live.

[seedhi]

For the same facet ie. ahimsa?

Yes, as a philosophy ahimsa is superior but is practicable only if every party adheres to it, or is at least bound by a moral and conscientious code of conduct. I elaborate in my previous post.

[Kriterion]

From what I understand, he has given the example of ahimsa preached by Gandhi as a superior philosophy than what Mohammad preached.

based on the definition of "ahimsa" as provided by both you and Boss, it was NO different from what Muhammad preached.

I mean it is perfectly logical to argue that ahima/non-violence is an eminently desirable principle for a society to follow. But it can succeed only if everyone abides by it.

if everyone abides by it, then its not ahimsa. being nice to someone who is nice to you is not meritorious at all. this whole discussion came about with Boss claiming that Dharmic faiths are more peaceful than Abrahamic ones. in fact, Jesus actually trumped "ahimsa" , as you and Boss have defined the concept, when he told his followers to "turn the left cheek also" if someone had "slapped their right cheek". THAT is non-violence. Non-violence is not failing to attack someone who hasn't attacked you.

As far as I can see, Islam does not propound such a philosophy of live and let live. It enjoins upon Islamic states to expand their boundaries through violence if need be. This has been going on from the time of Mohammad himself. I definitely agree with the contention that such an expansionist ideology is inferior to the path of ahimsa or live and let live.

well whether or not that is what the Quran says or what Muhammad did is pretty much the entire subject of this discussion. Feel free to jump in at any time.

[Kriterion]

In this thread we were discussing Gandhian philosphy from a personal religious perspective which is totally spiritual and peacfull in nature ... No one in their right mind can say that his ideals were wrong. they might be utopian but essentially they cant be faulted. This is the good aspect that needs to be recognized. However Gandhi was also a political leader and he could never understand that a state cannot be run based on his spiritual ideals relying mainly on the good conscience of 100s of millions ... simply because there were plenty that didnt subscribe to his teachings and the key thing was that he was aware of this and its repurcussions. If this wasnt bad enough it is common knowledge how he used to emotiionally blackmail the rest of the leaders to tow his line. And he came this close to handing over the entire country to a bigot like Jinnah. He was also against having a military !! This ( and there is plenty more examples ) are the serious drawback that gets criticized.

Fair enough. However, and this is the way I see it (obviously), the fact that there has NEVER been an instance in any point in time where all people or societies have practiced ahimsa, ahimsa is something that - in the absence of Divine intervention - will never exist. Therefore it is meaningless to say "it will only work if others are peaceful also" because that contingency will never happen. Its been proven through millenia of human history. Its just like if a Taliban were to claim that women could take their burkas off the day that men learn to control their lust. Thats nonsense, that day is never going to come.

[seedhi]

based on the definition of "ahimsa" as provided by both you and Boss' date=' it was NO different from what Muhammad preached.[/quote']Mohammad launched raids on caravans, attacked tribes without provocation. Its all well documented. Completely different from ahimsa, non-violence.

if everyone abides by it, then its not ahimsa.

I am talking of feasibility. The policy of ahimsa is feasible only if every party involved has a moral, conscientious code calibrated to peaceful coexistence. I gave you the example of Switzerland - it did not participate in any of the wars of last 100 years even though its neighbors fought each other. But they respected the Swiss neutrality. In this case Switzerland was able to occupy a non-violent path because its neighbors were reasonable.

being nice to someone who is nice to you is not meritorious at all.

I feel this very quality is lacking in Islamic thought. If your ideology condemns people as inferior simply based on what they believe then where is the question of being nice to them. Islamic theology considers the non-acceptance of Islam as a crime and you have the gall to talk about being nice. You should acquaint yourself with the hate filled Islamic literature and sermons which have inspired terrorists and obscurantists all over the world. They make no distinction between a criminal and a non-believer.

this whole discussion came about with Boss claiming that Dharmic faiths are more peaceful than Abrahamic ones.

Historically this has been true. Look at the history of Islam and Christianity and the violence their followers have wrought.

in fact, Jesus actually trumped "ahimsa" , as you and Boss have defined the concept, when he told his followers to "turn the left cheek also" if someone had "slapped their right cheek".

First of all Christianity has not remained limited to what Christ taught. There have been, over time, various interpretations of his teaching, by the Vatican Church, the Protestants etc. Many of these interpretations have been used to justify persecution of Jews, slavery, imperialism, forcible conversion etc. Even Christ ultimately did warn of an eternity of hell fire for anyone who deviates from the path prescribed by him - no matter what other good deeds.

THAT is non-violence. Non-violence is not failing to attack someone who hasn't attacked you.

This is a very farcical example. What if the person keeps on slapping you or he takes out a knife? The whole point is that there is a limit to ahimsa. It should not be stretched to an absurdity that leads to your own extinction.

[Kriterion]

Mohammad launched raids on caravans, attacked tribes without provocation. Its all well documented. Completely different from ahimsa, non-violence.

this has actually already been discussed. Muhammad launched raids on Meccan caravans AFTER the meccans had exiled him from that city to the city of Yathrib (medina). It was done for survival. Even the "documentation", to whatever extent it is accurate, lists provocation. And even without said documentation, Muhammad never attacked anyone during the first 13 years of his preaching. And even after he was evicted from his home, it was the Meccans who declared war on Medina based on the "caravan raids" - which were done in lieu of reperations. All attacks on tribes come AFTER the wars started and were due to the spiderwebs of 7th century Arabian military alliances.

I am talking of feasibility. The policy of ahimsa is feasible only if every party involved has a moral, conscientious code calibrated to peaceful coexistence. I gave you the example of Switzerland - it did not participate in any of the wars of last 100 years even though its neighbors fought each other. But they respected the Swiss neutrality. In this case Switzerland was able to occupy a non-violent path because its neighbors were reasonable.

Its neighbors included Adolf Hitler, who was hardly "reasonable". Rest assured if Britain had fallen, and the US didn't get invovled...the Swiss were next. Half of their population is ethnically German, to think that Hitler would not annex them is ludicrous.

I feel this very quality is lacking in Islamic thought. If your ideology condemns people as inferior simply based on what they believe then where is the question of being nice to them. Islamic theology considers the non-acceptance of Islam as a crime and you have the gall to talk about being nice. You should acquaint yourself with the hate filled Islamic literature and sermons which have inspired terrorists and obscurantists all over the world. They make no distinction between a criminal and a non-believer.

forget about islam for a minute. we're talking about ahimsa here. being peaceful with those who are peaceful to you, isn't a revolutionary idea at all. a woman who is faithful to her adoring husband is NOT a saint. a woman who forgives her cheating husband, IS. do you see the difference?

Historically this has been true. Look at the history of Islam and Christianity and the violence their followers have wrought.

Members of every faith have wreaked havoc at one time or another. Dharmics are no exception, except for perhaps the Jains as a community. Just look at the Sikhs who blew up Air India jets, the riots which followed. Asoka killing and conquoring lakhs of civilians. The riots in India during partition, etc.

This is a very farcical example. What if the person keeps on slapping you or he takes out a knife? The whole point is that there is a limit to ahimsa. It should not be stretched to an absurdity that leads to your own extinction.

that is the meaning of true non-violence. personally i don't agree with it. i think self defense is of a higher moral fibre than willful self-sacrifice, but that is an individuals prerogative. so i hope you see that your brand of "ahimsa" is no different than what the late Malcolm X said: "There is nothing in our religion or the Quran that teaches us to be violent. We are taught to obey the law, be respectful, and to be curteous. But if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetary. That is a good religion... Anytime I have to accept a religion that won't let me fight a battle for my people, I say to hell with that religion." So i don't disagree with your concept of ahimsa. I disagree with you and Boss packaging it as something novel and unheard of. Even the mafia practices that much, because its common sense.

[Kriterion]

No you are not giving any oppurtunity to anyone. Simply because you are not willing to accept anything as proof that your interpretation is wrong.

Logic supercedes scholarship. That is a given. You don't even have to agree to that, because that is a fundemental law of the world. Science and empirical data will always trump what any priest or cleric says or thinks. Now, you might disagree with my logic, and that is precisely where you have REFUSED to: a) show how my logic is wrong vis a vis Quran verse 54:1 b) provide your own logic regarding 54:1 The only thing more than that I can do is to write your argument for you. So I'll ask you again. If Muhammad claimed to perform a miracle he DID NOT peform, he must have been: 1) mentally insane and inept 2) speaking of something else Muhammad could not have been mentally inept due to the extraordinary odds he overcame in mere 23 year period. The fact that he even explicitly mentions the Day of Judgment (The Hour), makes this a no-brainer. In fact, every single scholar you have mentioned translates the term as The Hour, and uses the same term elsewhere to refer to the Day of Judgment, and yet contradicts themselves by referring to a moon-split. at any rate, lets assume for arguments sake, that Muhammad did claim to perform a miracle...that still wouldn't prove your point about the Quran containing an internal contradiction since, i went back and looked it up. apparently, i made a mistake: the quran never actually states that Muhammad would never have a miracle. Nonetheless, the context of the verse, the historical evidence, as well as the contradictins within the scholars interpretations makes it highly unlikely that such a thing happened.

If you want to prove me wrong you will have to prove how every single Islamic scholar was wrong and that the entire Islamic populace has been following these wrong interpretations for centuries without realizing the error even when the original Arabic text is available.

I don't have to do that. You have yourself admitted that the scholars have been caught bull*****ing.

[seedhi]

this has actually already been discussed. Muhammad launched raids on Meccan caravans AFTER the meccans had exiled him from that city to the city of Yathrib (medina). It was done for survival. Even the "documentation", to whatever extent it is accurate, lists provocation. And even without said documentation, Muhammad never attacked anyone during the first 13 years of his preaching. And even after he was evicted from his home, it was the Meccans who declared war on Medina based on the "caravan raids" - which were done in lieu of reperations. All attacks on tribes come AFTER the wars started and were due to the spiderwebs of 7th century Arabian military alliances.

Mohammad organized raids on the caravans which killed civilians. No natural law can justify such attacks. Did Buddha go around slaughtering people after he had been shunned by the priestly class? Did even Jesus do anything remotely similar?

Its neighbors included Adolf Hitler, who was hardly "reasonable". Rest assured if Britain had fallen, and the US didn't get invovled...the Swiss were next. Half of their population is ethnically German, to think that Hitler would not annex them is ludicrous.

But Switzerland could have aligned itself with any of the two sides and plunged into the war. It was able to avoid this because its neighbors were reasonable enough to respect its neutrality. Same with Scandinavian countries.

forget about islam for a minute. we're talking about ahimsa here. being peaceful with those who are peaceful to you, isn't a revolutionary idea at all. a woman who is faithful to her adoring husband is NOT a saint. a woman who forgives her cheating husband, IS. do you see the difference?

You are narrowing the definition of peaceful to simply physical violence. It has a broader meaning - in that you tolerate other people's beliefs, customs as long as they dont hurt you and you dont unnecessarily be aggressive. Dont harbor ill-will against anyone. Do the Abrahamic religions advocate tolerance, ABSOLUTELY NOT! Discriminating on the basis of religion is also against ahimsa. Stoning two men for simply being gay is also against ahimsa. Killing people for apostasy as well.

Members of every faith have wreaked havoc at one time or another. Dharmics are no exception, except for perhaps the Jains as a community. Just look at the Sikhs who blew up Air India jets, the riots which followed. Asoka killing and conquoring lakhs of civilians. The riots in India during partition, etc.

Sorry, but there is simply no comparison here. Entire civilizations have been made extinct in the wake of Christianity and Islam. Expansionism is hard coded into both these faiths.

that is the meaning of true non-violence. personally i don't agree with it. i think self defense is of a higher moral fibre than willful self-sacrifice, but that is an individuals prerogative.

No, that is a perversion of ahimsa. Just like the desirable qualities of brotherhood, fraternity and equality were stretched to an absurdity in the communist regimes, being defenceless is an absurdity and perversion of ahimsa.

so i hope you see that your brand of "ahimsa" is no different than what the late Malcolm X

The fact that he was following the Koran which divides people into believers and non-believers with the latter equated to criminals, which advocates fighting the infidels at all time, means that he was following a book which is against ahimsa.

[Kriterion]

Mohammad organized raids on the caravans which killed civilians. No natural law can justify such attacks.

in 7th century arabia, no one travelled unarmed. since there were no uniformed armies anywhere in the world...all the worlds population were technically "civilians". The muslims had every NEED, forget about rights, to take anything of value from the Quraish and their Meccan allies. This includes and is not limited to: food, clothing, shelter, arms, merchandise. there was no United Nations or Amnesty International or ICJ who would ensure proper reparrations or compensation to the Muslims who had been forced out of Mecca and hence away from their homes and LIVLIHOODS. and we're talking several hundred to thousands of people, not one a few individuals who could be housed by others. and there were no homeless shelters or government subsidized welfare programs back then either.

Did Buddha go around slaughtering people after he had been shunned by the priestly class?

Muhammad did NOT do anything for merely being "shunned" either. Muhammad was forced out of his home, under threat of life. Was Buddha similarly treated? And if he was, that pretty much blows holes in the "dharmic" more peaceful than "abrahamic" argument. Btw, this wasn't just about Muhammad. This was about his followers as well, a few of whom - not many - but a few, who had actually been KILLED by the meccans BEFORE these caravan raids even factored into the equation.

Did even Jesus do anything remotely similar?

nope. but thats why you yourself have stated that "turning the other cheek" was "farcical", to use your exact words.

But Switzerland could have aligned itself with any of the two sides and plunged into the war. It was able to avoid this because its neighbors were reasonable enough to respect its neutrality. Same with Scandinavian countries.

irrelevant. circumstantial. Hitler simply didn't get the chance to attack Switzerland. For whatever reason, it was lower on his list of priorities than Poland, Sudetenland, etc. Do you really think Hilter would have been satisfied to control all of Europe, except for Switzerland?

You are narrowing the definition of peaceful to simply physical violence. It has a broader meaning - in that you tolerate other people's beliefs, customs as long as they dont hurt you and you dont unnecessarily be aggressive. Dont harbor ill-will against anyone. Do the Abrahamic religions advocate tolerance, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

They don't NOT tolerate any less than Dharmic faiths (with the exception of the statistically insignificant Jains). History and the fact that every religion not named Jainism has a massive body count with it is proof enough. Or shall we now argue that no Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh has ever killed a single person unlawfully? To be clear, I won't speak on behalf of Christianity or Judaism, but there is NO REASON to believe that Islam allows any form of tolerance if the QURAN IS READ LITERALLY. Discriminating on the basis of religion is also against ahimsa. Stoning two men for simply being gay is also against ahimsa. Killing people for apostasy as well. The gay thing might not exactly be possible, since hindu holy texts mention homosexuality between gods/heroes to begin with. At least thats what i've heard about the Kama Sutra, et al. Sorry to burst your bubble of prejudice, but the Quran never calls for the death of apostates either. Nor does it ever urge muslims to deal "unjustly" with people of other religions. And please cite the verse if you believe otherwise. Very easy to make garbage assertions, totally different to back them up.

Sorry, but there is simply no comparison here. Entire civilizations have been made extinct in the wake of Christianity and Islam. Expansionism is hard coded into both these faiths.

in a debate, pedanticism counts. in the wake of Christians and Muslims, yes. I've never doubted that.

No, that is a perversion of ahimsa. Just like the desirable qualities of brotherhood, fraternity and equality were stretched to an absurdity in the communist regimes, being defenceless is an absurdity and perversion of ahimsa.

I'm not gonna disgree...but then Ahimsa is totally common sense and nothing new or novel. Its the same thing God's true messengers have been preaching for eternity.

The fact that he was following the Koran which divides people into believers and non-believers with the latter equated to criminals, which advocates fighting the infidels at all time, means that he was following a book which is against ahimsa.

Where did you find the word "infidel" in the Quran?

[Kriterion]

The mistake that you are commiting here is that assuming that the Quran is logical and that the scholars across 14 centuries were all illogical. I have explained this soo many times. The bottom line is the consensus overwhelming majority opinion w.r.t what 54:1 means is that the moon was split. It has been interpreted like that for about 14 centuries. End of story.

you did not understand properly. we're not debating the logic of the Quran or even of scholars. at least not right now. we're debating the logic of your argument that Muhammad could both be functionally competent AND claim to perform miracles that he and everyone else knew COULD not possibly be have performed.

All this has been explained numerous times and the mental state of Muhammad is simply a digression from the main topic. (And the main topic is : what 54:1 really means ).

so you're saying the mental state of a person has no bearing on what they wrote, claimed, or said? awesome.

The point is not about internal contradiction but that of the event itself having never happened as we now know through science that the moon hasnt been split.

once again you've last track of your own arguments. you cited 54:1, SOLELY, to prove the quran contradicts itself. because then you would argue, the HADITH cannot be discounted simply for being self-contradictory. thats a logical fallacy in and of itself for at least 2 reasons, the most important being that the quran contradicting itself does not mean the Hadith does NOT contradict itself...i.e its still an unreliable source.

means that Qurans claim of being a crystal clear text is just wrong.

nope, it just means you have pre-determined thought process about the verse. hence why your INGNORING completely the phrase "the Hour" which tells everything you need to know about that verse. Same with the scholars who were in desperate need to provide a "miracle" to prove Muhammad's legitimacy. Just because you don't understand the theory of relativity does not mean Einstein did a poor job of making it unambigous. The Quran has a explicit claim that it is a "kitabun Mubeen" for those who "THINK", not for those with clouded and pre-set notions. The fact that your argument implicitly calls for the beliefe that a schizophrenic man could simaltaneously be mentally and physically competent is the only proof one needs to expose your lack of "thought".

Again you are missing the entire point. They have been caught bsing because the original is faulty ( sorry to be blunt but there is no other way I can explain this ). But since it has this "stamp" of being God's work it is beyond any questioning. Thats what is the state of mind of majority muslims including scholars. Yes there is a small minority ( i.e Md Asad and his supporters such as you ) which tries to fit a square peg in a round hole by claiming that Quran never claims to have split the moon but their case has no leg to stand on because of the sheer amount of evidence going against them which I have elaborated in great detail many times in this thread.

it doesn't matter why they are BS-ing. the fact that they ARE BS-ing is enough to question their authenticity. thats like saying if you cheat on your wife because she's lousy in bed, its not cheating anymore.

[seedhi]

in 7th century arabia, no one travelled unarmed. since there were no uniformed armies anywhere in the world...all the worlds population were technically "civilians". The muslims had every NEED, forget about rights, to take anything of value from the Quraish and their Meccan allies. This includes and is not limited to: food, clothing, shelter, arms, merchandise. there was no United Nations or Amnesty International or ICJ who would ensure proper reparrations or compensation to the Muslims who had been forced out of Mecca and hence away from their homes and LIVLIHOODS. and we're talking several hundred to thousands of people, not one a few individuals who could be housed by others. and there were no homeless shelters or government subsidized welfare programs back then either.

Even if Muhammad had been forced out of Mecca, he had no right to waylay traders and caravans who might not have had anything to do with the decision. It is exactly this sort of perverted thought that inspires terrorist violence, it is easy to hold this as an example to argue that if Israel commits a crime then it is fine to bomb an American airliner since US and Israel are allies.

Muhammad did NOT do anything for merely being "shunned" either. Muhammad was forced out of his home, under threat of life. Was Buddha similarly treated? And if he was, that pretty much blows holes in the "dharmic" more peaceful than "abrahamic" argument.

Buddha was initially ostracized, but he won over supporters by his teachings which did not involve launching wars, executing his critics, ordering the execution of PoWs etc. Btw, Jesus was threatened with life as well and he didnt go about attacking caravans and executing people either.

Btw, this wasn't just about Muhammad. This was about his followers as well, a few of whom - not many - but a few, who had actually been KILLED by the meccans BEFORE these caravan raids even factored into the equation.

Be that as it may, Mohammad did use violence and disproportionately so in my opinion. For example, there was no need to order the execution of captured prisoners if they did not accept Islam, which he did. That was simple unnecessary bloodshed in which he indulged.

nope. but thats why you yourself have stated that "turning the other cheek" was "farcical", to use your exact words.

Still puts the actions of Jesus at a higher plane than Muhammad who used violence to force people to accept the beliefs he propagated. Attacking caravans and traders is not self defense.

irrelevant. circumstantial. Hitler simply didn't get the chance to attack Switzerland. For whatever reason, it was lower on his list of priorities than Poland, Sudetenland, etc. Do you really think Hilter would have been satisfied to control all of Europe, except for Switzerland?

I am not defending Hitler or his intentions. I am giving an example that non-violence as a policy can (only) succeed as long as all parties behave reasonably. If tomorrow, every country abandons weapons and becomes a Switzerland then this world will obviously be a much better place, so to that extent the philosophy of non-violence is morally superior.

They don't NOT tolerate any less than Dharmic faiths (with the exception of the statistically insignificant Jains). History and the fact that every religion not named Jainism has a massive body count with it is proof enough. Or shall we now argue that no Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh has ever killed a single person unlawfully?

Pure balderdash. How many civilizations has Hinduism forced its beliefs on at the point of the sword. Just read the history of Persia - how the native faith was systematically eradicated by Islamic invaders through discrimination and violent persecution. After all the Parsees in India did not appear magically, they were fleeing Islamic persecution. And in India, the amount of savagery that has gone on in the name of Islam is probably unprecedented. The destruction of temples, universities, imposition of jaziya on Hindus - all justified in the name of Islam. The very concept of a jaziya on non-believers is condemnable, its repugnance only exceeded by the willingness of Muslims to defend it.

To be clear, I won't speak on behalf of Christianity or Judaism, but there is NO REASON to believe that Islam allows any form of tolerance if the QURAN IS READ LITERALLY.

I dont know whether you meant it, but you have written the truth - there is no reason to believe that Islam allows any form of tolerance if the Quran is read literally.

Sorry to burst your bubble of prejudice, but the Quran never calls for the death of apostates either. Nor does it ever urge muslims to deal "unjustly" with people of other religions.

Firstly, the hadiths are pretty clear on what apostates need to undergo. And these are laws implemented in Islamic states. The Koran calls on believers to fight the non-believers wherever they find them, pretty obvious what it thinks of the non-believers.

in a debate, pedanticism counts. in the wake of Christians and Muslims, yes. I've never doubted that.

Thats proof enough of the violent nature of both the faiths. Much of the violence had religious sanction.

I'm not gonna disgree...but then Ahimsa is totally common sense and nothing new or novel. Its the same thing God's true messengers have been preaching for eternity.

You can keep deluding yourself. The whole world knows that ahimsa and Islam are twains that never meet. Your Islamic brethren who established the purest form of Islamic state in Afghanistan during the Taliban years have conveyed to the world as much.

Where did you find the word "infidel" in the Quran?

Infidel = disbeliever and I am pretty sure they have been referenced many times over. By the way, the hadiths are also part of religious text of Islam.

[Kriterion]

Even if Muhammad had been forced out of Mecca' date=' he had no right to waylay traders and caravans who might not have had anything to do with the decision. It is exactly this sort of perverted thought that inspires terrorist violence, it is easy to hold this as an example to argue that if Israel commits a crime then it is fine to bomb an American airliner since US and Israel are allies.[/quote'] It was done for survival. And the caravans were always Quraishi caravans, never caravans that came from the North. Remember, people didn't have jobs and a house with 2 cars waiting for them in Medina. And by and large the majority of muslims were from the poorest classes of meccan society. so no question of moving vast amounts of assets with them.

Buddha was initially ostracized, but he won over supporters by his teachings which did not involve launching wars, executing his critics, ordering the execution of PoWs etc. Btw, Jesus was threatened with life as well and he didnt go about attacking caravans and executing people either. Be that as it may, Mohammad did use violence and disproportionately so in my opinion

. Buddha was merely ostracized. Muhammad too was initially ostracized, until he started gaining a larger following. Then he was only protected by his powerful uncle Abu Talib. Once he died around 620-621...Muhammad's life was in threat. He STILL DID NOT wage any wars. Merely raided caravans AFTER being expelled from mecca for survival of hundreds of people. Either dispute that fact, or go home, frankly.

For example, there was no need to order the execution of captured prisoners if they did not accept Islam, which he did.

Nothing in the Quran indicates that violence can be perpetrated on anyone who has not attacked you first. End. Of. Story.

Still puts the actions of Jesus at a higher plane than Muhammad who used violence to force people to accept the beliefs he propagated. Attacking caravans and traders is not self defense.

Except when its the only way to survive and done against the one who attacked you first (by evicting you from your home and livlihood).

I am not defending Hitler or his intentions. I am giving an example that non-violence as a policy can (only) succeed as long as all parties behave reasonably

. I fully agree. But that scenario will never happen. Its idealistic. Ask any political scientist if yo don't believe me.

If tomorrow, every country abandons weapons and becomes a Switzerland then this world will obviously be a much better place, so to that extent the philosophy of non-violence is morally superior.

Pure balderdash. How many civilizations has Hinduism forced its beliefs on at the point of the sword.

Umm...how about Bengal for starters?

Just read the history of Persia - how the native faith was systematically eradicated by Islamic invaders through discrimination and violent persecution. After all the Parsees in India did not appear magically, they were fleeing Islamic persecution. And in India, the amount of savagery that has gone on in the name of Islam is probably unprecedented. The destruction of temples, universities, imposition of jaziya on Hindus - all justified in the name of Islam. The very concept of a jaziya on non-believers is condemnable, its repugnance only exceeded by the willingness of Muslims to defend it.

never denied this. but a religion should be distinguished from the actions of its followers. muslims drink alcohol, doesn't mean thats what the quran teaches.

I dont know whether you meant it, but you have written the truth - there is no reason to believe that Islam allows any form of tolerance if the Quran is read literally.

typo. Correction: there is no reason to believe in intolerance, IF the quran is read literally.

Firstly, the hadiths are pretty clear on what apostates need to undergo. And these are laws implemented in Islamic states.

any hadith which contradicts the quran SHOULD be thrown out as inauthentic. thats the whole debate between me and Boss.

The Koran calls on believers to fight the non-believers wherever they find them, pretty obvious what it thinks of the non-believers.

That is only in context of the Quraish (and their allies) for expelling muslims from Mecca, and then declaring war for taking reparrations from them. If you can find me a verse which urges fighting against peaceful people, I'll concede the argument to you.

Thats proof enough of the violent nature of both the faiths.

Just contradicted yourself, buddy boy. You just praised Jesus above, if even relatively so. Which way are you going? Left, right? Both?

Infidel = disbeliever and I am pretty sure they have been referenced many times over. By the way, the hadiths are also part of religious text of Islam.

Not all hadith. Ask any "scholar". And where does the quran mention anything about a "disbeliever"? The arabic word Kafir means, literally, "a person who knowingly conceals the truth". It does not mean "disbeliever" or a "non-muslim". A person who knowingly conceals the truth, opposes the truth in pursuit of an agenda. It may be financial, it may be religious, it may be political, it may be personal. You and Boss most likely fit under that description.Yet you will continue to fight unprovoked and not let anyone live in peace. You will even "attack" members of your own community, so there is no question of your "tolerance" for mlecchas.