Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?

Started by Sheoldred, September 07, 2014, 05:51:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Oniya

That's - not exactly what Raudra-dhyâna means.  Quoting from the Dravya Samghara of Nemichandra Chakravartti:

QuoteRaudra-dhyâna is that which has reference to the external or internal activity of a being whose intention is cruel.  Raudra-dhyâna is of four kinds:  (1) that which arises from a delight in harming others, (2) that which arises from a delight in speaking a falsehood, (3) that which arises from a delight in theft, and (4) that which arises from a delight in hoarding up and preserving things.

This looks to be a bit more discerning than just the Happiness Patrol.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Caehlim

Quote from: DarkAngel111 on January 12, 2015, 10:53:07 PMJainism Also believes in Raudradhyana That is for those who don't know, Killing off all beings that are not Happy.

According to all the sources I can find, Raudra Dhyana or as a rough translation "cruel thoughts", does not have anything to do with killing unhappy people nor is it a practise encouraged by Jainism. It is simply a description of a particular mindset, describing someone who is experiencing the desire to harm others.

Jainism encourages meditation to avoid Raudra Dhyana and seek out Dharma Dhyana or "virtuous thoughts" instead.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

DarkAngel111

Honestly I haven't researched the topic Specifically it was something Just came to my mind when I heard about Jainism. It was something I had seen or listened to in a documentary somewhere. So I cannot qoute the source persay, but the real meaning of my post was that one would eradicate their bad karma by killing a being who may spread sins or Commit sins. That is allowed in Jainism which is more or less like killing infidels.

The Term I cannot stand by as I could be wrong it was something I heard quite a while back and now that i looked I saw the real meaning is what Caehlim qouted.

Also to address Meditation, it says, to kill anyone that kills, be it human or a lesser being. Therefore you stop the spreading of bad karma. Meditation is to avoid those thoughts but if you have such thoughts you would be killed.

Also to address the flaw in their whole concept is the fact that they believe all predators are inherently sad as they kill and ideally they should be killed so they do not take another life. (Predators would include humans too who have Raudra Dhyana) Which means anyone who does not share their beliefs would be killed.... Not so non-violent as it appears?

Lilias

Quote from: Ephiral on January 12, 2015, 08:07:33 PM
The translation I keep seeing for Article 198, section 2 is "manifesting a disrespect for the deity". Can you provide a more accurate one?

The term used is τα θεία, which means 'what is held sacred'. Usage is a lot more difficult to convey than the dictionary meaning.

Anyway, this is becoming a tangent that doesn't belong on this thread. My remark upthread was to point out that this statement

Quote from: Skynet on January 10, 2015, 01:49:08 PM
Actually, in Greek law it's illegal to criticize the Orthodox Church.

is both inaccurate and a false analogy.
To go in the dark with a light is to know the light.
To know the dark, go dark. Go without sight,
and find that the dark, too, blooms and sings,
and is traveled by dark feet and dark wings.
~Wendell Berry

Double Os <> Double As (updated Feb 20) <> The Hoard <> 50 Tales 2024 <> The Lab <> ELLUIKI

Caehlim

Quote from: DarkAngel111 on January 13, 2015, 01:05:51 AMHonestly I haven't researched the topic Specifically it was something Just came to my mind when I heard about Jainism. It was something I had seen or listened to in a documentary somewhere. So I cannot qoute the source persay, but the real meaning of my post was that one would eradicate their bad karma by killing a being who may spread sins or Commit sins. That is allowed in Jainism which is more or less like killing infidels.

This is a very strong assertion that is presently lacking supporting evidence. You may wish to consider whether you may be remembering the details of the documentary incorrectly or if the documentary may have perhaps contained errors if the information is not also found in other sources.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

DarkAngel111

Indeed I take my words back I found the document, And it is quite confusing, Although I do think the Jain commentator has sided that Killing the creatures does not solve the problem so one should Abstain from it.

For anyone else who would like to read:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&sqi=2&ved=0CHIQFjAJ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de%2Findex.php%2Fjiabs%2Farticle%2FviewFile%2F8791%2F2698&ei=JN60VImLDoXnasGJgZgJ&usg=AFQjCNHRicLIkssANDPSvHbuKDPENh7j9g&sig2=--0xXRMVFZ6IKgePqM60zw&bvm=bv.83339334,d.d2s&cad=rja

Its a PDF file :)

Caehlim

Quote from: DarkAngel111 on January 13, 2015, 03:00:17 AMIndeed I take my words back I found the document, And it is quite confusing, Although I do think the Jain commentator has sided that Killing the creatures does not solve the problem so one should Abstain from it.

I agree, that's a fairly confusing article. I've had to read through it a couple of times to make sure I'm understanding correctly. It appears that however that it's talking about other groups (in this case the Samsaramockacas) criticizing Jainist non-violence by suggesting that unhappy creatures should be killed and includes a Jainist response that this argument is wrong as killing the unhappy creature would cause Raudra Dhyana.

However because of the article's confusing layout I can see how it would be easy to misinterpret the claim that unhappy creatures should be killed as being Jainist, rather than anti-Jainist.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

DarkAngel111

indeed back in the day when I read it It was not for a different reason and so interpretation was not needed more an understanding of the general things. So I Apologize once more :)

Vekseid

Quote from: DarkAngel111 on January 12, 2015, 10:53:07 PM
Jainism Also believes in Raudradhyana That is for those who don't know, Killing off all beings that are not Happy.

It does not take much effort to dig up the fact that you are telling a falsehood.

Are you confusing it with sallekhana?

Quote
Jainism believes if people are not Happy, they are full of sin and therefore should not be allowed to live. In general, it is mandatory to kill them because that is the only way they will go to hell and suffer for their sins then be reborn a better being.

So Jainism in other words supports killing of anything that is not happy. Although I am not fully sure who determines that, but its a pretty messed up logic if everyone who was sad was killed off....It is said that if you kill such beings (animals or warms or humans) you are eradicating their sins, and it is a approved.

Now I am left to wonder, how is it that they believe in Ahimsa?

I don't know if someone told you such nonsense or you decided to make it up whole cloth.

Most of the misrepresentations of Islam you complain about have more basis in fact than what you just said.

Sabre

#409
Quote from: Beorning on January 12, 2015, 11:22:59 AM
BTW. I just read on one news site that a young atheist in Egypt has just been sentenced for three years in prison for admitting that he's an atheist...

I really would like to get some comment on this from Muslims here on E, as I really don't know what to think here...  :-(

In Classical Islamic Law, blasphemy and obscenity are not 1:1 alike to Western legal or colloquial definitions despite the fact that we commonly translate terminology this way. The accused, like many jailed in Egypt recently, are imprisoned not exactly for what they believe so much as publicly stating their belief. There is a conceptual barrier set in place for public and private that goes beyond even Western conception of privacy (just not in practice). Historically in the Western and Christian legal tradition what a person thought and believed was of paramount importance, but not so much in the Middle East where the very concept of an inquisition to root out heresy was rare and where instead persecution or restriction or expression of religious freedom centered heavily on what a person could or could not do in public.

Liberal tradition in the West thus came to see freedom of thought as a virtue in opposition to the oppression of the ancien regimes. Making public appeals to the public to adopt a new idea was the ultimate expression of fighting for said freedom. But in Egypt freedom of thought is not tied to freedom of expression this way. Instead freedom of expression is more closely tied with concepts like sedition, treason, or disruption of public order.

DarkAngel111

Quote from: Vekseid on January 13, 2015, 05:09:29 AM
It does not take much effort to dig up the fact that you are telling a falsehood.

Are you confusing it with sallekhana?

I don't know if someone told you such nonsense or you decided to make it up whole cloth.

Most of the misrepresentations of Islam you complain about have more basis in fact than what you just said.

Read my last Post, I believe I have corrected myself and taken those words back :) no need to get all rude about it. I admitted that I made a mistake.

Beorning

Quote from: Sabre on January 13, 2015, 05:32:42 AM
In Classical Islamic Law, blasphemy and obscenity are not 1:1 alike to Western legal or colloquial definitions despite the fact that we commonly translate terminology this way. The accused, like many jailed in Egypt recently, are imprisoned not exactly for what they believe so much as publicly stating their belief. There is a conceptual barrier set in place for public and private that goes beyond even Western conception of privacy (just not in practice). Historically in the Western and Christian legal tradition what a person thought and believed was of paramount importance, but not so much in the Middle East where the very concept of an inquisition to root out heresy was rare and where instead persecution or restriction or expression of religious freedom centered heavily on what a person could or could not do in public.

Liberal tradition in the West thus came to see freedom of thought as a virtue in opposition to the oppression of the ancien regimes. Making public appeals to the public to adopt a new idea was the ultimate expression of fighting for said freedom. But in Egypt freedom of thought is not tied to freedom of expression this way. Instead freedom of expression is more closely tied with concepts like sedition, treason, or disruption of public order.

I didn't know about that, but still... punishing someone for admitting to being an atheist is just wrong, isn't it?

Kythia

Quote from: Beorning on January 14, 2015, 12:14:57 PM
I didn't know about that, but still... punishing someone for admitting to being an atheist is just wrong, isn't it?

Why?
242037

Beorning

Quote from: Kythia on January 14, 2015, 12:24:36 PM
Why?

Oh, come on. I think we can agree that freedom of religion (and of expressing that religion) is a good concept?

Life in Color

Quote from: Beorning on January 14, 2015, 12:27:32 PM
Oh, come on. I think we can agree that freedom of religion (and of expressing that religion) is a good concept?

It's a Western concept, though.

You cannot apply the same kind of thinking to a region where that thinking isn't applied.

Vergil Tanner

We can and we will. It doesn't matter if it's a western, eastern or Martian concept; the fact remains that punishing somebody simply because they disagree with the majority is wrong, and violates freedom of thought. Are you suggesting that because it's their culture, they should be entitled to oppression and thought-policing? That is a concept I reject out of hand.
Vergil's Faceclaim Archive; For All Your Character Model Seeking Needs!


Men in general judge more by the sense of sight than by that of touch, because everyone can see but few can test by feeling. Everyone sees what you seem to be, few know what you really are; and those few do not dare take a stand against the general opinion. Therefore it is unnecessary to have all the qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.

Dubbed the "Oath of Drake,"
A noble philosophy; I adhere...for now.

Valthazar

Quote from: Alixandre on January 14, 2015, 12:30:59 PMIt's a Western concept, though.

You cannot apply the same kind of thinking to a region where that thinking isn't applied.

However, you can (and I would argue, is extremely important) to apply this Western concept to Muslims voluntarily choosing to live in the West.

DarkAngel111

That is the whole problem of this discussion,

Apparently the Western way of thinking is supposed to be universal but if same thing is said about muslims about their own religious concepts in their own country its wrong :)

Sabre

Quote from: Sheoldred on January 08, 2015, 10:54:43 AMIf the answer is no then can you point to a verse in the Quran or some passage in the Hadith that specifically states that it was only okay back then? Claiming that they're outdated or 'cherrypicking' the verses that you like either proves you don't accept the Quran in its whole entirety or that its not really perfect. A perfect holy book cannot possibly contain outdated verses. A perfect book is timeless lest you want to argue the definition of a perfect holy book. And even if you find those verses that say its not ok to do these things today wouldn't that prove moral relativism rather than moral absolutism that Muslims and Christians love to toot about? And if the answer is yes then that answer speaks for itself.

It's common to see a religion reduced to a set of propositions of belief and a few universal practices that supposedly reflect that belief, but in reality they rarely do. Islam is a hodgepodge of revelation, hadith jurisprudence, and the social and historical influences on its practitioners. Reducing it to the Quran is to treat it like the Protestant-Catholic debate in Christian theological studies, and the above is a clear example of it. In every sentence is a supposition that must be tacitly accepted in order to refute it, but there is no reason to unless one were Salafist or an ideological Islamist.

Beorning

Quote from: Alixandre on January 14, 2015, 12:30:59 PM
It's a Western concept, though.

You cannot apply the same kind of thinking to a region where that thinking isn't applied.

Sorry, but that really does sound like using culture to excuse the situation when someone's human rights are being violated.

To use an example: in India, there seems to be a big problem with women being raped. I really don't see anyone saying that we shouldn't condemn these acts, because women's rights are simply a Western concept...

Quote from: DarkAngel111 on January 14, 2015, 12:36:27 PM
That is the whole problem of this discussion,

Apparently the Western way of thinking is supposed to be universal but if same thing is said about muslims about their own religious concepts in their own country its wrong :)

Actually, human rights *are* considered to be universal. And freedom of religion is a human right.

Vergil Tanner

That is, I'm afraid, a complete strawman. I don't care where the concept comes from; if it's a good concept, then we apply it. Are you saying that freedom of/from religion and freedom of thought and expression is a bad thing or something that shouldn't be applied wherever possible (there are limits, of course; there are rightfully laws against hate speech and the like, but I'm talking generally here)? If a concept or way of thinking is harmful or bad, I reject it. And the suppression of freedom of speech and freedom of thought is a bad thing. I don't get why people are acting like this is a relative thing.

Also, what Beorning said. I agree whole-heartedly.
Vergil's Faceclaim Archive; For All Your Character Model Seeking Needs!


Men in general judge more by the sense of sight than by that of touch, because everyone can see but few can test by feeling. Everyone sees what you seem to be, few know what you really are; and those few do not dare take a stand against the general opinion. Therefore it is unnecessary to have all the qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.

Dubbed the "Oath of Drake,"
A noble philosophy; I adhere...for now.

Kythia

Quote from: Beorning on January 14, 2015, 12:27:32 PM
Oh, come on. I think we can agree that freedom of religion (and of expressing that religion) is a good concept?

Again, why.  What is the thing about that that is good? 
242037

DarkAngel111

There is a problem though about double standards,
George W. Bush is not being charged as a war Criminal for all the innocent lives that were taken in wars,

Did he not violate Human rights there? Or Barrack Obama for that reason?

DarkAngel111

Quote from: Vergil Tanner on January 14, 2015, 12:41:10 PM
That is, I'm afraid, a complete strawman. I don't care where the concept comes from; if it's a good concept, then we apply it. Are you saying that freedom of/from religion and freedom of thought and expression is a bad thing or something that shouldn't be applied wherever possible (there are limits, of course; there are rightfully laws against hate speech and the like, but I'm talking generally here)? If a concept or way of thinking is harmful or bad, I reject it. And the suppression of freedom of speech and freedom of thought is a bad thing. I don't get why people are acting like this is a relative thing.

Also, what Beorning said. I agree whole-heartedly.

Who decides what should be Applied universally?, If A minority does not like a law, suddenly its okay to Oppress their Opinion? because Majority thinks its right?

Sabre

Quote from: Beorning on January 14, 2015, 12:27:32 PM
Oh, come on. I think we can agree that freedom of religion (and of expressing that religion) is a good concept?

The point is that it is wrong, but the wrongness should be understood in its own context so as to better criticize it. The 'how' can then follow from the 'why.' To be axiomatic is to be ineffective without understanding either Western Liberal tradition or the Muslim one.

Otherwise you are just an English student correcting the grammar of an incorrect sentence written in Mandarin Chinese.