if you say what critic is, then read.
http://archive.org/details/satyarthprakashl00dayauoft (http://archive.org/details/satyarthprakashl00dayauoft)
Am I missing something? Seriously, where does your site address Islam? :-s Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"Am I missing something? Seriously, where does your site address Islam? :-s Solitary
no no you got it wrong.
i shares what i know..
i am just looking for reality.
Quote from: "AtheTurk"i shares what i know .. I am just looking for reality.
He shares. I share. You share. We share. If you want to know reality, read Physics.
However, the writer of book in your link (Swami Dayananda Saraswati) established a cult in hinduism (Arya Samaj). He twisted Vedas to mean what he wanted. For example, Vedas say that a bull was sacrificed and invited Indra, their chief God, to partake it. He gave a completely different, vegetarian :), and false translation. He was against idol worship (his way was to pour libations in fire, the way of the Vedas), and did not accept hindu Gods and Goddesses. Rama, Krishna, Vishnu, Laxmi, etc. But hinduism is not Vedas only, it is more than that. For main-line hindus, it is a sort of blasphemy. I am sorry that he used uncouth language in denouncing christianity and islam. That is not the hindu way. But one must also realize that his action was a reaction against the activities of christian missionaries in that period (under British rule). They have only worsened with time.
Speaking of critics of Islam (and since I can't start new topics yet), has anyone read The Truth About Muhammed, by Robert Spencer? I picked it up today at the library, but I read a few things about Spencer since I got home, and it seems that he's extremely anti-Islam. I mean, I'm still going to read the book, but I just wanted to know if anyone had any thoughts on it.
we must not be islamist, or anti-islamist. both of bullshit.
problem is objectively reading..
Quote from: "JonathanG"Speaking of critics of Islam (and since I can't start new topics yet), has anyone read The Truth About Muhammed, by Robert Spencer? I picked it up today at the library, but I read a few things about Spencer since I got home, and it seems that he's extremely anti-Islam. I mean, I'm still going to read the book, but I just wanted to know if anyone had any thoughts on it.
I might have a look for that.
Why I Am Not A Muslim by Ibn Warraq is a pretty good read too.
Quote from: "AtheTurk"problem is objectively reading..
Problem is understanding what this site is about.
Quote from: "JonathanG"Speaking of critics of Islam (and since I can't start new topics yet), has anyone read The Truth About Muhammed, by Robert Spencer? I picked it up today at the library, but I read a few things about Spencer since I got home, and it seems that he's extremely anti-Islam. I mean, I'm still going to read the book, but I just wanted to know if anyone had any thoughts on it.
Ive come to realize that telling the truth about Muhammed paints him as a real jerk, regardless of whether its told by someone who is pro-Islam or anti-Islam.
(Interestingly, his advocates can make him seem just as disagreeable.)
Quote from: "Cocoa Beware"Quote from: "JonathanG"Speaking of critics of Islam (and since I can't start new topics yet), has anyone read The Truth About Muhammed, by Robert Spencer? I picked it up today at the library, but I read a few things about Spencer since I got home, and it seems that he's extremely anti-Islam. I mean, I'm still going to read the book, but I just wanted to know if anyone had any thoughts on it.
Ive come to realize that telling the truth about Muhammed paints him as a real jerk, regardless of whether its told by someone who is pro-Islam or anti-Islam.
(Interestingly, his advocates can make him seem just as disagreeable.)
I respect Mohammad for the power he created for himself. Kinda like Stalin and Hitler; disgusting people, but you cant argue that they didn't know how to maneuver their way to the top.
Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"Quote from: "JonathanG"Speaking of critics of Islam (and since I can't start new topics yet), has anyone read The Truth About Muhammed, by Robert Spencer? I picked it up today at the library, but I read a few things about Spencer since I got home, and it seems that he's extremely anti-Islam. I mean, I'm still going to read the book, but I just wanted to know if anyone had any thoughts on it.
I might have a look for that. Why I Am Not A Muslim by Ibn Warraq is a pretty good read too.
I just finished it (it's a short book), and Spencer definitely does come from a "Islam is attacking America" angle, but the bulk of the book deals with the discrepancies between what Muhammed actually said and how proponents of Islam choose to interpret it. Sort of like Christians who choose to ignore all "bad" things in the bible and insist that their god is a loving god.
While it was slanted, the slant was very transparent and easy to read around. What I did like about it is that all of Spencer's biographical sources were from what most Muslims claim as their sources as well.
Do I really need to read stuff like this, just in case Islam just so happens to be the only religion that isn't bullshit?
It's real easy: Religion is bad, because it mixes politics with superstition, enables the deceitfull to swindle the desperate, and hinders human progress through dogma.
ALL religion.
pardon me:
where i linked to you is big. file sorrry.
what i purpose is getting you be read chapter 14(XIV)
Quote from: "Jutter"Do I really need to read stuff like this, just in case Islam just so happens to be the only religion that isn't bullshit?
It's real easy: Religion is bad, because it mixes politics with superstition, enables the deceitfull to swindle the desperate, and hinders human progress through dogma.
ALL religion.
A Ramen Noodle!
I get down on atheists or theists who while rightfully point at Islam forget that it wasn't that long ago that Christianity was as bloody and tribal. Secularism put a leash on it and is why when I confronted my Christian co workers with the word "bullshit" to all religions, the best they could do is say "RESPECT ME" and quickly change the topic.
Religion is a weapon, you wont get rid of it, but to claim it is not a weapon is absurd to the point of human suffering because of such ignorance.
Even the oriental religions have had their sects and tribal beefs. China and Japan have their superstitions respectively and they are not exactly friends.
The point is not about labels, the point is that as long as humans dwell in stupid concepts of "I am special because of my superstition" we will always be hindered by such childish insecurity as a species.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Cocoa Beware"Quote from: "JonathanG"Speaking of critics of Islam (and since I can't start new topics yet), has anyone read The Truth About Muhammed, by Robert Spencer? I picked it up today at the library, but I read a few things about Spencer since I got home, and it seems that he's extremely anti-Islam. I mean, I'm still going to read the book, but I just wanted to know if anyone had any thoughts on it.
Ive come to realize that telling the truth about Muhammed paints him as a real jerk, regardless of whether its told by someone who is pro-Islam or anti-Islam.
(Interestingly, his advocates can make him seem just as disagreeable.)
I respect Mohammad for the power he created for himself. Kinda like Stalin and Hitler; disgusting people, but you cant argue that they didn't know how to maneuver their way to the top.
Yeah, I get your point, and I actually agree. Charismatic, strong, goal-minded leaders have manipulated the masses all throughout history. Some use religion, others use nationalism, others use tribal/sectarian/ethnic sentiments, but in the end of the day it's about creating a power structure with the leaders at the top and the subservient masses blindly following the leader's orders at the bottom.
I think before someone criticize Islam for its vile nature, s/he should read Quran, at least a part (its painful) and dig a little into their history. After that you`ll be able to form your own ideas rather than subscribing to someone else's ideology, without looking into the source.
In my opinion, else it is on par with believing religion itself otherwise.
I agree with frosty.
I listened to these not too long ago: //http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvvx-1AGfPc&list=PL7B9B868D0D0F61F5
Listening to stuff is often easier for me than reading, because I can do other things while I listen. Maybe some of you guys also find it easier to listen to something than finding time to actually read things. Not the best way to learn, IMO, but better than learning nothing while doing mundane chores.
As phxSL suggested, I did try to read the Koran a couple of times. It hurt too much and made no sense to me whatsoever. Praise Allah and may peace be upon Mohammad, like every other paragraph. Just cut my head off if I have to read that crap all the time.
Well, I could imagine that, as I've seen before, certain dedicated Muslim believers would be a bit offended at me and Shiranu talking about how Muhammad gained power for himself. But it really doesn't matter if they get offended, if they get offended then it is simply proving our point more. There are a plethora of ways to manipulate humans on a systematic level; religion is among the most powerful of ways to do that.
Muhammad was a "boss", as the kids these days like to say.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I am all ears to learn what is so unique about this 7th century warlord among all countless of others.
What's unique is that his ideas lasted until today. The ideas of the other people who claimed to speak for the gods haven't. (Unique only means "the only one of its kind", and Islam is if we're limiting ourselves to the 7th century Middle East.)
I have attempted to make my point crystal clear. I will refer you to this:
Quote from: "frosty"Quote from: "Shiranu"I respect Mohammad for the power he created for himself. Kinda like Stalin and Hitler; disgusting people, but you cant argue that they didn't know how to maneuver their way to the top.
Yeah, I get your point, and I actually agree. Charismatic, strong, goal-minded leaders have manipulated the masses all throughout history. Some use religion, others use nationalism, others use tribal/sectarian/ethnic sentiments, but in the end of the day it's about creating a power structure with the leaders at the top and the subservient masses blindly following the leader's orders at the bottom.
Muhammad was a boss for the reasons ascribed above. He went from being an illiterate nobody in the desert to commanding an army that converted a large portion of the world population to his way of thinking. Muhammad is part of a long list of leaders that have used the appeal of their ideology to build an empire and gain power.
The unfortunate thing about using a religion as a tool is that it has a tendency to gain a life of its own.
Look at L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology: he originally founded it as a way to get rich. Decades after his death, it continues to grow and spread misery, fleecing the gullible out of their savings and holding their families hostage while skirting the law in innumerable ways. If anything, it has become even crazier after losing its founder.
Of course, if you're a charismatic asshole who wants power and doesn't give a damn about human suffering, then go ahead and found a cult. That, or enter the GOP primaries. :wink:
Interesting question - can the GOP now be considered a cult? Or is that just the tea party part of the GOP?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Colanth"What's unique is that his ideas lasted until today.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said people from Christian cultures tend to percieve Muhammed somehow like Jesus. Now, I don't mean you see two character the same with this. I mean you see their roles, occurances and also their divine characters attributed to this as the same in outcome.
I've actually never heard a "westerner" with this viewpoint. At most, it's Jesus who, even though he had a man's body, was actually God, while Mohammed was just a man.
QuoteWell we know Jesus is a mythical character and we know its pagan roots, also most of the iconotropc myth(s) and characters that ended to create him and Christianity.
We do - Christians tend to run from "Jesus is most likely based on a real person" to "Jesus was God come to earth as a man".
QuoteWe know that Konstantin accepted Christianity as an official religion, because he didn't have any other choice.
I don't know whether "accepted" is the right word. According to what we're deciphering from his column, he pretty much invented the religion that exists today. What was it before? We don't know, but I strongly suspect it was just a sect (or a lot of different sects) of Judaism.
QuoteMuhammed is just a successful warlord and a politician who managed to used its environment and situation to build a unified system. But what we see from muslims today, what they 'believe' or the 'sacred' they keep their faith in any scale, is something constructed over a thousand years. Creating its own myth on the way like every other religion. This is why they are so divided and have so many different sects. You cannot find that much of conflicting difference in Christianity, can you?
Huh? There are over 30,000 different sects of Christianity, some even accused, by almost all the rest, of not even being Christianity. MANY wars were fought in Europe over what Christianity actually is. Even at the very beginning, at Nicaea in 325 CE, there was fighting over whether Christianity should be Arianist (the son is subordinate to the father), Unitarian or Trinitarian. And the conflict has never stopped, it's just changed what they're fighting about.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Colanth"Huh? There are over 30,000 different sects of Christianity, some even accused, by almost all the rest, of not even being Christianity. MANY wars were fought in Europe over what Christianity actually is. Even at the very beginning, at Nicaea in 325 CE, there was fighting over whether Christianity should be Arianist (the son is subordinate to the father), Unitarian or Trinitarian. And the conflict has never stopped, it's just changed what they're fighting about.
Yes I am aware of that. Are they in war now, Colanth?
Actual physical shooting war, the way various sects of Islam are? Not any more. But they were until pretty recently (from an historical viewpoint).
QuoteNicaea is in Turkiye. We've have been calling it ?znik for the last 700 years.
Yes, I couldn't think of the Turkish name when I typed the post, and I was too lazy to look it up.
QuoteAnd what happened to the rest of my post? The part where the very obvious difference between two religions and their head actors role in it? :roll:
No argument about any of the rest. I only commented on the parts I didn't completely agree with. (You'd get bored with line after line of "yes, I agree", wouldn't you?)
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Why would you write the Turkish name, it's unnecessary.
For the same reason I usually don't call Istanbul Constantinople. In this case I probably would have said "Iznik (Nicaea)".
not nicaea,it's
is Nikéa
is Nikomídi
stin Kô
How you spell it depends on what language you speak. You say Turkiye, I say Turkey.