Discussion:
Rohingya Muslim Infiltration into Myanmar
(too old to reply)
Rahul Chakma
2004-04-11 09:35:45 UTC
Permalink
"Kill them wherever you find them, and drive
them out from whence they drove you out, and
persecution is severer than slaughter, and do
not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until
they fight with you in it, but if they do fight
you, then slay them; such is the recompense of
the unbelievers." [Quran 2.191]

Bangladesh shares about 300 Km border with
Myanmar. Since 1947, the successive Pakistani
and Bangladeshi governments have been sponsoring
the Bengali Muslims to infiltrate into Rakhine
state of Myanmar to alter the demographic profile
if favour of the Muslims. So called Rohingya Muslims
are nothing but illegal infiltrators from Bangladesh,
they have no ancestral and historical root in Myanmar.

The infiltration is part of the Islamic expansionism.
In the Muslim viewpoint, the world is divided into
two regions- those areas controlled by Islam, called
Dar al-Islam (meaning the House of Islam) and those
called Dar al-Harb (the House of War). Islam commands
Muslims to infiltrate into the non-Muslim countries,
outbreed and fight non-Muslims until they exterminate
all non-Muslims, leaving Islam as the one and only
religion of the land (Sura 8:39). Muhammad is quoted
in the Hadith as saying, I have been ordered to fight
with the people until they say, none has the right to
be worshiped but Allah. (Hadith 4:196).

The Rohingya Muslims are twisting the history. With
the help of Bangladeshi intelligence and
middle eastern finance, they formed
an armed group called ARNO (Arakan Rohingya National
Organisation) to "liberate" Rakhine state from
Myanmar and establish an Islamic state. This group
is armed, trained and harboured by the Bangladesh
army and intelligence. The Rohingya Muslims are a
classic example of trans-national terrorism. The
international Jihadis fight alongside Rohingyas
against Myanmar military, the Rohingya fighters in turn
help their co-religionists in Kashmir, Afghanistan,
Chechnya, Kosovo etc.

The Rohingya Muslims are involved in human rights
violations against the indigenous Rakhine population
of Myanmar. They abduct and rape Rakhine girls, murder
men and disposses the Rakhines of their land.

I urge the Amnesty International and UNHCR to see the
Rohingya Muslim problem objectively and not fall
into the baseless Rohingy Muslim propaganda.


Rahul Chakma
(A Buddhist in Bangladesh)
Genocide against Buddhists: "http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma"
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-11 10:28:00 UTC
Permalink
"Rahul Chakma" <***@angelfire.com>
[....]
Post by Rahul Chakma
The Rohingya Muslims are involved in human rights
violations against the indigenous Rakhine population
of Myanmar. They abduct and rape Rakhine girls, murder
men and disposses the Rakhines of their land.
I urge the Amnesty International and UNHCR to see the
Rohingya Muslim problem objectively and not fall
into the baseless Rohingy Muslim propaganda.
Rahul Chakma
(A Buddhist in Bangladesh)
Genocide against Buddhists: "http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma"
What's the opinion of
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD)
about this issue ?
Amanda
2004-04-11 20:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dieter Aaaa
[....]
Post by Rahul Chakma
The Rohingya Muslims are involved in human rights
violations against the indigenous Rakhine population
of Myanmar. They abduct and rape Rakhine girls, murder
men and disposses the Rakhines of their land.
I urge the Amnesty International and UNHCR to see the
Rohingya Muslim problem objectively and not fall
into the baseless Rohingy Muslim propaganda.
Rahul Chakma
(A Buddhist in Bangladesh)
Genocide against Buddhists: "http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma"
What's the opinion of
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD)
about this issue ?
Do not fall for this baseless propanganda from hate mongers toward
Rohingya who happens to be Muslims.

Rohingya is a group of people who have existed in Burma as a ethnic
group resulted from mixed racial group (of Turkish, Arab, and
sometimes Chinese, and other native trives, etc.) for 600 years.

They have distinctive culture and their religion is islam.

These Muslims have served loyally under the Arakan king (Bhuddist) who
had allied himeslef with Moghul Empire, rather than Burmese kingdon.
In fact, Arakan king and Burmses King were rival enemies. The Arakan
king not only borrowed the titles form Moghul rulers, but also
routinely appointed the Muslims for high positions in the court.

During British rule, this region was incorporated into "Burma" and
after Independence, the modern Burmese government had severly
discriminted them based on religion by accusing them as descedants of
Banglasdeshi and such...

There is no Islamic propaganda from this group. It's just human rights
abuse which you can read from reports of Amnesty Int'l.

As far as Aung San Su Kyi is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised that
NDL doesn't care one way another about the future of these people.
After all, this group of people are highly intelligent and industrious
people. Given any opportunity, they would be at the top in everything
they do and the Burman know that and fear them.

My suggestion to anyone interested in this issue, please do research
and not fall for propaganda.
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-11 20:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
[....]
Post by Rahul Chakma
The Rohingya Muslims are involved in human rights
violations against the indigenous Rakhine population
of Myanmar. They abduct and rape Rakhine girls, murder
men and disposses the Rakhines of their land.
I urge the Amnesty International and UNHCR to see the
Rohingya Muslim problem objectively and not fall
into the baseless Rohingy Muslim propaganda.
Rahul Chakma
(A Buddhist in Bangladesh)
Genocide against Buddhists: "http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma"
What's the opinion of
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD)
about this issue ?
Do not fall for this baseless propanganda from hate mongers toward
Rohingya who happens to be Muslims.
Rohingya is a group of people who have existed in Burma as a ethnic
group resulted from mixed racial group (of Turkish, Arab, and
sometimes Chinese, and other native trives, etc.) for 600 years.
They have distinctive culture and their religion is islam.
These Muslims have served loyally under the Arakan king (Bhuddist) who
had allied himeslef with Moghul Empire, rather than Burmese kingdon.
In fact, Arakan king and Burmses King were rival enemies. The Arakan
king not only borrowed the titles form Moghul rulers, but also
routinely appointed the Muslims for high positions in the court.
During British rule, this region was incorporated into "Burma" and
after Independence, the modern Burmese government had severly
discriminted them based on religion by accusing them as descedants of
Banglasdeshi and such...
There is no Islamic propaganda from this group. It's just human rights
abuse which you can read from reports of Amnesty Int'l.
As far as Aung San Su Kyi is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised that
NDL doesn't care one way another about the future of these people.
After all, this group of people are highly intelligent and industrious
people. Given any opportunity, they would be at the top in everything
they do and the Burman know that and fear them.
My suggestion to anyone interested in this issue, please do research
and not fall for propaganda.
Why should the west support the NLD if they, once they are in power, they
will sell the country to muslims ?
Or at least allow them to spread such an aggressive medievial religion...
If NLD would strive to real peace for the people of Myanmar/Burma, they
should ban the islam.

The (muslim-) propaganda is very clear about their targets. Peacefull
cohabitation is not part of their goals.

As long as we, here in western Europe, don't have the strong assurance that
NLD will kick-out all muslims, NLD will not gain the support of people in
Europe.
We, Christians here in Europe are, together with the peacefull Buddhist
people of Myanmar, also suffering from the muslim violence.

We don't need muslims here, neither in Myanmar/Burma.
One of the crowd
2004-04-12 00:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
[....]
Post by Rahul Chakma
The Rohingya Muslims are involved in human rights
violations against the indigenous Rakhine population
of Myanmar. They abduct and rape Rakhine girls, murder
men and disposses the Rakhines of their land.
I urge the Amnesty International and UNHCR to see the
Rohingya Muslim problem objectively and not fall
into the baseless Rohingy Muslim propaganda.
Rahul Chakma
(A Buddhist in Bangladesh)
Genocide against Buddhists: "http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma"
What's the opinion of
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD)
about this issue ?
Do not fall for this baseless propanganda from hate mongers toward
Rohingya who happens to be Muslims.
Rohingya is a group of people who have existed in Burma as a ethnic
group resulted from mixed racial group (of Turkish, Arab, and
sometimes Chinese, and other native trives, etc.) for 600 years.
They have distinctive culture and their religion is islam.
These Muslims have served loyally under the Arakan king (Bhuddist) who
had allied himeslef with Moghul Empire, rather than Burmese kingdon.
In fact, Arakan king and Burmses King were rival enemies. The Arakan
king not only borrowed the titles form Moghul rulers, but also
routinely appointed the Muslims for high positions in the court.
During British rule, this region was incorporated into "Burma" and
after Independence, the modern Burmese government had severly
discriminted them based on religion by accusing them as descedants of
Banglasdeshi and such...
There is no Islamic propaganda from this group. It's just human rights
abuse which you can read from reports of Amnesty Int'l.
As far as Aung San Su Kyi is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised that
NDL doesn't care one way another about the future of these people.
After all, this group of people are highly intelligent and industrious
people. Given any opportunity, they would be at the top in everything
they do and the Burman know that and fear them.
My suggestion to anyone interested in this issue, please do research
and not fall for propaganda.
Why should the west support the NLD if they, once they are in power, they
will sell the country to muslims ?
Or at least allow them to spread such an aggressive medievial
religion...
Post by Dieter Aaaa
If NLD would strive to real peace for the people of Myanmar/Burma, they
should ban the islam.
The (muslim-) propaganda is very clear about their targets. Peacefull
cohabitation is not part of their goals.
As long as we, here in western Europe, don't have the strong assurance that
NLD will kick-out all muslims, NLD will not gain the support of people in
Europe.
We, Christians here in Europe are, together with the peacefull Buddhist
people of Myanmar, also suffering from the muslim violence.
We don't need muslims here, neither in Myanmar/Burma.
You sounds very much anti-islam and it is people like you who instigate
christianity and jews violence that force the Muslims to retaliate against
abuses done onto Muslims by the christian and jews. which one are you?

You want the world to be a peaceful place to live in but your thinking is
just the opposite; harbouring seeds of violence.
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-12 12:01:37 UTC
Permalink
"One of the crowd" <***@crowd.com> wrote...

[....................]
Post by One of the crowd
Post by Dieter Aaaa
We don't need muslims here, neither in Myanmar/Burma.
You sounds very much anti-islam
that's right, and I have very valuable reasons for that.
Post by One of the crowd
and it is people like you who instigate
christianity and jews violence that force the Muslims to retaliate
bull.
Muslims don't "retaliate"
They attack people without any reason
Post by One of the crowd
against
abuses done onto Muslims by the christian
bull..
Muslims have such lond toes, and such a strangled fantasy, such immoral
leaders, that they allways will find a reason to attack other, peacefull
people.
Even today in Iraq, they have take hostage Chinese innocent people.
Muslims are stupid and crual against ALL non-muslims, whatever their
religion or nationality is.
Post by One of the crowd
You want the world to be a peaceful place to live in but your thinking is
just the opposite; harbouring seeds of violence.
the seed is in your own muslim religion and in your own brain
Amanda
2004-04-14 18:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
[....]
Post by Rahul Chakma
The Rohingya Muslims are involved in human rights
violations against the indigenous Rakhine population
of Myanmar. They abduct and rape Rakhine girls, murder
men and disposses the Rakhines of their land.
I urge the Amnesty International and UNHCR to see the
Rohingya Muslim problem objectively and not fall
into the baseless Rohingy Muslim propaganda.
Rahul Chakma
(A Buddhist in Bangladesh)
Genocide against Buddhists: "http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma"
What's the opinion of
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD)
about this issue ?
Do not fall for this baseless propanganda from hate mongers toward
Rohingya who happens to be Muslims.
Rohingya is a group of people who have existed in Burma as a ethnic
group resulted from mixed racial group (of Turkish, Arab, and
sometimes Chinese, and other native trives, etc.) for 600 years.
They have distinctive culture and their religion is islam.
These Muslims have served loyally under the Arakan king (Bhuddist) who
had allied himeslef with Moghul Empire, rather than Burmese kingdon.
In fact, Arakan king and Burmses King were rival enemies. The Arakan
king not only borrowed the titles form Moghul rulers, but also
routinely appointed the Muslims for high positions in the court.
During British rule, this region was incorporated into "Burma" and
after Independence, the modern Burmese government had severly
discriminted them based on religion by accusing them as descedants of
Banglasdeshi and such...
There is no Islamic propaganda from this group. It's just human rights
abuse which you can read from reports of Amnesty Int'l.
As far as Aung San Su Kyi is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised that
NDL doesn't care one way another about the future of these people.
After all, this group of people are highly intelligent and industrious
people. Given any opportunity, they would be at the top in everything
they do and the Burman know that and fear them.
My suggestion to anyone interested in this issue, please do research
and not fall for propaganda.
Why should the west support the NLD if they, once they are in power, they
will sell the country to muslims ?
What are you? Mythology believer? NDL stands for National Demorcratic
Leage, headed by Aung San Su Gyi, and has not association with any
Muslim organization.
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Or at least allow them to spread such an aggressive medievial religion...
If NLD would strive to real peace for the people of Myanmar/Burma, they
should ban the islam.
The (muslim-) propaganda is very clear about their targets. Peacefull
cohabitation is not part of their goals.
As long as we, here in western Europe, don't have the strong assurance that
NLD will kick-out all muslims, NLD will not gain the support of people in
Europe.
NDL should not get support from the west unless it is genuinely
interested in implementing true demorcracy and ensure human rights of
all residents of Burma (as defined in UN charter), including the
Rohingya Muslims who have lived in Burma for generations as well as
the Muslim descendants who lived in big cities -not of Arakan region -
who were brought in by the British or migrated to Burma (from British
India) during the British days.
Post by Dieter Aaaa
We, Christians here in Europe are, together with the peacefull Buddhist
people of Myanmar, also suffering from the muslim violence.
Your ignorance on what's happening in Burma is well noted. Also
noted is your pretending to be a Christian or European. The
Europeans are not ignorant. You are not fooling anyone.
Post by Dieter Aaaa
We don't need muslims here, neither in Myanmar/Burma.
Ignorant surrounding that you are in will only provide you with
ignorance.
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-14 19:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
[....]
Post by Rahul Chakma
The Rohingya Muslims are involved in human rights
violations against the indigenous Rakhine population
of Myanmar. They abduct and rape Rakhine girls, murder
men and disposses the Rakhines of their land.
I urge the Amnesty International and UNHCR to see the
Rohingya Muslim problem objectively and not fall
into the baseless Rohingy Muslim propaganda.
Rahul Chakma
(A Buddhist in Bangladesh)
Genocide against Buddhists: "http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma"
What's the opinion of
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD)
about this issue ?
Do not fall for this baseless propanganda from hate mongers toward
Rohingya who happens to be Muslims.
Rohingya is a group of people who have existed in Burma as a ethnic
group resulted from mixed racial group (of Turkish, Arab, and
sometimes Chinese, and other native trives, etc.) for 600 years.
They have distinctive culture and their religion is islam.
These Muslims have served loyally under the Arakan king (Bhuddist) who
had allied himeslef with Moghul Empire, rather than Burmese kingdon.
In fact, Arakan king and Burmses King were rival enemies. The Arakan
king not only borrowed the titles form Moghul rulers, but also
routinely appointed the Muslims for high positions in the court.
During British rule, this region was incorporated into "Burma" and
after Independence, the modern Burmese government had severly
discriminted them based on religion by accusing them as descedants of
Banglasdeshi and such...
There is no Islamic propaganda from this group. It's just human rights
abuse which you can read from reports of Amnesty Int'l.
As far as Aung San Su Kyi is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised that
NDL doesn't care one way another about the future of these people.
After all, this group of people are highly intelligent and industrious
people. Given any opportunity, they would be at the top in everything
they do and the Burman know that and fear them.
My suggestion to anyone interested in this issue, please do research
and not fall for propaganda.
Why should the west support the NLD if they, once they are in power, they
will sell the country to muslims ?
What are you? Mythology believer? NDL stands for National Demorcratic
Leage, headed by Aung San Su Gyi, and has not association with any
Muslim organization.
I know, but I don't trust them
I am still awating a strong statement against islam from the NDL.
In absence of that statement: no support.
As simple as that.
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Or at least allow them to spread such an aggressive medievial religion...
If NLD would strive to real peace for the people of Myanmar/Burma, they
should ban the islam.
The (muslim-) propaganda is very clear about their targets. Peacefull
cohabitation is not part of their goals.
As long as we, here in western Europe, don't have the strong assurance that
NLD will kick-out all muslims, NLD will not gain the support of people in
Europe.
NDL should not get support from the west unless it is genuinely
interested in implementing true demorcracy and ensure human rights of
all residents of Burma (as defined in UN charter),
That's right
Post by Amanda
including the
Rohingya Muslims who have lived in Burma for generations as well as
the Muslim descendants who lived in big cities
That's wrong
NLD should support the development of Myanmar and the very valuable Buddhist
religion,
they should destroy the medivial muslim religion, whatever the backround or
your muddy explanation is.

It seems to be a typical muslim babbit to always find a strangled
explanation for their extremism.
Go away and let the people of Myanmar in peace.
Post by Amanda
-not of Arakan region -
who were brought in by the British or migrated to Burma (from British
India) during the British days.
That doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.
Go away. Go back to SaudiArabia

I sincerely hope that one day, also Malaysia will be cleaned from their
muslim invaders.
Amanda
2004-04-15 14:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
[....]
Post by Rahul Chakma
The Rohingya Muslims are involved in human rights
violations against the indigenous Rakhine population
of Myanmar. They abduct and rape Rakhine girls, murder
men and disposses the Rakhines of their land.
I urge the Amnesty International and UNHCR to see the
Rohingya Muslim problem objectively and not fall
into the baseless Rohingy Muslim propaganda.
Rahul Chakma
(A Buddhist in Bangladesh)
Genocide against Buddhists: "http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma"
What's the opinion of
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD)
about this issue ?
Do not fall for this baseless propanganda from hate mongers toward
Rohingya who happens to be Muslims.
Rohingya is a group of people who have existed in Burma as a ethnic
group resulted from mixed racial group (of Turkish, Arab, and
sometimes Chinese, and other native trives, etc.) for 600 years.
They have distinctive culture and their religion is islam.
These Muslims have served loyally under the Arakan king (Bhuddist) who
had allied himeslef with Moghul Empire, rather than Burmese kingdon.
In fact, Arakan king and Burmses King were rival enemies. The Arakan
king not only borrowed the titles form Moghul rulers, but also
routinely appointed the Muslims for high positions in the court.
During British rule, this region was incorporated into "Burma" and
after Independence, the modern Burmese government had severly
discriminted them based on religion by accusing them as descedants of
Banglasdeshi and such...
There is no Islamic propaganda from this group. It's just human rights
abuse which you can read from reports of Amnesty Int'l.
As far as Aung San Su Kyi is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised that
NDL doesn't care one way another about the future of these people.
After all, this group of people are highly intelligent and industrious
people. Given any opportunity, they would be at the top in everything
they do and the Burman know that and fear them.
My suggestion to anyone interested in this issue, please do research
and not fall for propaganda.
Why should the west support the NLD if they, once they are in power,
they
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
will sell the country to muslims ?
What are you? Mythology believer? NDL stands for National Demorcratic
Leage, headed by Aung San Su Gyi, and has not association with any
Muslim organization.
I know, but I don't trust them
I am still awating a strong statement against islam from the NDL.
Well NLD leaders are educated people who are not ignorant like you to
make a sweeping generalization of Muslims.
Post by Dieter Aaaa
In absence of that statement: no support.
Who needs supports form bigots liek you?
Post by Dieter Aaaa
As simple as that.
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Or at least allow them to spread such an aggressive medievial
religion...
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
If NLD would strive to real peace for the people of Myanmar/Burma, they
should ban the islam.
The (muslim-) propaganda is very clear about their targets. Peacefull
cohabitation is not part of their goals.
As long as we, here in western Europe, don't have the strong assurance
that
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
NLD will kick-out all muslims, NLD will not gain the support of people
in
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Europe.
NDL should not get support from the west unless it is genuinely
interested in implementing true demorcracy and ensure human rights of
all residents of Burma (as defined in UN charter),
That's right
Post by Amanda
including the
Rohingya Muslims who have lived in Burma for generations as well as
the Muslim descendants who lived in big cities
That's wrong
NLD should support the development of Myanmar and the very valuable Buddhist
religion,
they should destroy the medivial muslim religion,
Aha...your bigotry is in full sprred now..huh?
Post by Dieter Aaaa
whatever the backround or
your muddy explanation is.
It seems to be a typical muslim babbit to always find a strangled
explanation for their extremism.
*Their* extremeism? If you have half a brain, you would do research
and know that it's 10% of the Muslism who are fanatics and in fact
they are twisting the religion to accomplish their goals. There are
terrorist groups all over the world: Irish group in Ireland, Tamily
Tigers, etc.

Generalizing a while group of peope because of some bad appels only
shows your ignorance. If you want to educate yourself, learn about
Wahhbism. Otherwise, look yourself in the mirror at the end of the
day everyday and see how long you can stand yourself calling
destruction of innocent human beings. Then ask yourself, how much
respect you have for yourself.
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Go away and let the people of Myanmar in peace.
The people of Myanmar know who their enemies are. Your propaganda,
working for the military, won't take you very far..
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
-not of Arakan region -
who were brought in by the British or migrated to Burma (from British
India) during the British days.
That doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.
Go away. Go back to SaudiArabia
I sincerely hope that one day, also Malaysia will be cleaned from their
muslim invaders.
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-15 17:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
whatever the backround or
your muddy explanation is.
It seems to be a typical muslim babbit to always find a strangled
explanation for their extremism.
*Their* extremeism? If you have half a brain, you would do research
and know that it's 10% of the Muslism who are fanatics and in fact
they are twisting the religion to accomplish their goals. There are
terrorist groups all over the world: Irish group in Ireland, Tamily
Tigers, etc.
Generalizing a while group of peope because of some bad appels only
shows your ignorance. If you want to educate yourself, learn about
Wahhbism. Otherwise, look yourself in the mirror at the end of the
day everyday and see how long you can stand yourself calling
destruction of innocent human beings. Then ask yourself, how much
respect you have for yourself.
there you go again:
a strangled explanation, a self fabricated excuse to spread your evil
religion in a peacefull country.

Go away there, let the people from myanmar live in peace.
Amanda
2004-04-17 15:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
whatever the backround or
your muddy explanation is.
It seems to be a typical muslim babbit to always find a strangled
explanation for their extremism.
*Their* extremeism? If you have half a brain, you would do research
and know that it's 10% of the Muslism who are fanatics and in fact
they are twisting the religion to accomplish their goals. There are
terrorist groups all over the world: Irish group in Ireland, Tamily
Tigers, etc.
Generalizing a while group of peope because of some bad appels only
shows your ignorance. If you want to educate yourself, learn about
Wahhbism. Otherwise, look yourself in the mirror at the end of the
day everyday and see how long you can stand yourself calling
destruction of innocent human beings. Then ask yourself, how much
respect you have for yourself.
a strangled explanation, a self fabricated excuse to spread your evil
religion in a peacefull country.
Go away there,
Feel threatened?
Post by Dieter Aaaa
let the people from myanmar live in peace.
Do you really want the epopel of Myanmar live in peace? Then, help
them get rid of military dictatorship and install a demorcraic
government that will practise true demorcracy, i.e equal rights for
all the people of Myanmar including the Muslims (regardless of their
ethnic background) who have been living in Burma for many many
generations and make the ignorant ones (including you yourself who is
pretending to be a European) why it is International Human Rights
Violation to just sit and watch hate mongers like you calling for
Muslism blood.
Chee Buu
2004-04-18 04:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Khwe pazak ka nat sakar htwet.
(The holy word is spoken by mad dog.)

equal rights for muslim people?? How about muslim women's right ?
Why Islam ban women to study ? Why raped victim women need to submit
4 men as witness for her suffering ? Why women not allow to study ?

Why Saudi Arabia does not allow any religion even holding small
discussion and praying session at their homes ? But, these cunning Arabs
support
aids and money to so-called charity and morques in Asian countries.
Is this fair ? Is it human right ?

Tell the right of muslim in the desert of middle east where you come
from, not here, soc.culture.burma.

Visit this site and learn more.

http://www.faithfreedom.org.

BTW, your friend, Ransiti was going to heaven to enjoy sexual pleasure
with 200 virgins and pearl boys at Islamic paradise today.

How about you ? When will you go to that place ? After killing innocent
Burmese and Rakhine people by Hamas of Burma's suicide bombing ? or
After dynamiting
our Shwe-da-gon pagoda?

Allah welcomes you and Hamas of Burma for killing infidels around the
world.
i.e equal rights for all the people of Myanmar including the Muslims (regardless of their
ethnic background) who have been living in Burma for many many
generations and make the ignorant ones (including you yourself who is
pretending to be a European) why it is International Human Rights
Violation to just sit and watch hate mongers like you calling for
Muslism blood.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-18 21:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chee Buu
Khwe pazak ka nat sakar htwet.
(The holy word is spoken by mad dog.)
equal rights for muslim people?? How about muslim women's right ?
Why Islam ban women to study ? Why raped victim women need to submit
4 men as witness for her suffering ? Why women not allow to study ?
Why Saudi Arabia does not allow any religion even holding small
discussion and praying session at their homes ? But, these cunning Arabs
support
aids and money to so-called charity and morques in Asian countries.
Is this fair ? Is it human right ?
Tell the right of muslim in the desert of middle east where you come
from, not here, soc.culture.burma.
Visit this site and learn more.
http://www.faithfreedom.org.
BTW, your friend, Ransiti was going to heaven to enjoy sexual pleasure
with 200 virgins and pearl boys at Islamic paradise today.
How about you ? When will you go to that place ? After killing innocent
Burmese and Rakhine people by Hamas of Burma's suicide bombing ? or
After dynamiting
our Shwe-da-gon pagoda?
Allah welcomes you and Hamas of Burma for killing infidels around the
world.
;-)
Amanda
2004-04-19 03:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chee Buu
Khwe pazak ka nat sakar htwet.
(The holy word is spoken by mad dog.)
equal rights for muslim people??
You are still clueless, aren't you. Muslims is not a name for an
ethnic group, Mr. ignorama.
Post by Chee Buu
How about muslim women's right ?
Oh..you are concern about Muslims women now? Tell you what: just work
on getting men and women of Burma get their human rights first and the
rest will come into place.

Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women,
way before Europe ever gets the idea. Failure of men, caused the
Islamic world to stagnate and there is much work to do. But do try to
get out of your ignorance: Islam doesn't ban women to study.
Post by Chee Buu
Why Islam ban women to study ? Why raped victim women need to submit
4 men as witness for her suffering ?
Why don't you just work on allowing people of Burma to use *any*
witness for their sufferings at the hand of military dictatorhsip
first.
Post by Chee Buu
Why women not allow to study ?
Why don't you got ask them?
Post by Chee Buu
Why Saudi Arabia does not allow any religion even holding small
discussion and praying session at their homes ? But, these cunning Arabs
support
aids and money to so-called charity and morques in Asian countries.
Is this fair ?
Did I say it's fair?
Post by Chee Buu
Is it human right ?
Did I say that was human rights?
Post by Chee Buu
Tell the right of muslim in the desert of middle east where you come
from, not here, soc.culture.burma.
Displaying your ignorance again and gain?
How many time s would I have to explain that "Muslims" IS Not Equal To
"Arabs".

There are Arab Muslims and Arab Christians.

There are many non-Arab Muslims: Turks, Albanian, Bosnians, Persian,
Afghans, Chechens, Africans (Nigerians, and many differnt tribes of
Africa), Malyasian, etc.
Post by Chee Buu
Visit this site and learn more.
http://www.faithfreedom.org.
Oh, what an unbiased and relaiable source given by the Ignorama!

I'll skip responding to the rest of your garbage. All you are seeing
and saying is shit. Why don't you try to get your head out of your
ass, for a change.
Post by Chee Buu
BTW, your friend, Ransiti was going to heaven to enjoy sexual pleasure
with 200 virgins and pearl boys at Islamic paradise today.
How about you ? When will you go to that place ? After killing innocent
Burmese and Rakhine people by Hamas of Burma's suicide bombing ? or
After dynamiting
our Shwe-da-gon pagoda?
Allah welcomes you and Hamas of Burma for killing infidels around the
world.
i.e equal rights for all the people of Myanmar including the Muslims (regardless of their
ethnic background) who have been living in Burma for many many
generations and make the ignorant ones (including you yourself who is
pretending to be a European) why it is International Human Rights
Violation to just sit and watch hate mongers like you calling for
Muslism blood.
Pan
2004-04-19 04:58:47 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Apr 2004 20:08:02 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Amanda) wrote:

[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]

You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-19 18:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
I was considering religions in the world as historians do: Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam.

Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
Post by Pan
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
intruder
2004-04-19 20:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
I was considering religions in the world as historians do: Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam.
Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
What is your definition of religion. Is Islam not a way of life too.
It presrcibes how one have sex, what one should wear....
Amanda
2004-04-20 02:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by intruder
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
I was considering religions in the world as historians do: Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam.
Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
What is your definition of religion. Is Islam not a way of life too.
It presrcibes how one have sex, what one should wear....
Hey, I was just going with the common usage (of terms) of today's
world. I didn't define anything.
jay
2004-04-20 03:39:42 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:04:12 +0200, intruder
Post by intruder
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
I was considering religions in the world as historians do: Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam.
Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
What is your definition of religion. Is Islam not a way of life too.
It presrcibes how one have sex, what one should wear....
kinda like what your zoo keeper prescribes you. lol.
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
2004-04-20 13:29:03 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by intruder
Post by Amanda
Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
What is your definition of religion. Is Islam not a way of life too.
It presrcibes how one have sex, what one should wear....
Maybe he means that Buddhism, in common with Taoism and Confucism,
are just philosophies of living. They don't prescribe submission to god.
intruder
2004-04-21 20:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by intruder
Post by Amanda
Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
What is your definition of religion. Is Islam not a way of life too.
It presrcibes how one have sex, what one should wear....
Maybe he means that Buddhism, in common with Taoism and Confucism,
are just philosophies of living. They don't prescribe submission to god.
So you say religion is a belief in and reverence for a supernatural
power or whatever powers regarded as creator and governor of the
universe.
Does Buddhism not have a supernatural power as governor?
jay
2004-04-21 20:24:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:07:51 +0200, intruder
Post by intruder
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by intruder
Post by Amanda
Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
What is your definition of religion. Is Islam not a way of life too.
It presrcibes how one have sex, what one should wear....
Maybe he means that Buddhism, in common with Taoism and Confucism,
are just philosophies of living. They don't prescribe submission to god.
So you say religion is a belief in and reverence for a supernatural
power or whatever powers regarded as creator and governor of the
universe.
governor of the universe. lol. only from the ass of a babboon one
would hear this. lol.
Post by intruder
Does Buddhism not have a supernatural power as governor?
no, but they all believe you came back in this life as a monkey for
your past karma. lol.

(better go check in google for what karma is) hehehehe.....
Pan
2004-04-20 08:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
I was considering religions in the world as historians do: Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam.
Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
That's debatable on both ends. Besides, there are many other
religions.

And your basis for asserting that Judaism gave no rights to women is
what?

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
2004-04-20 13:25:37 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Pan
That's debatable on both ends. Besides, there are many other
religions.
And your basis for asserting that Judaism gave no rights to women is
what?
Judaism before Islam. Did it give any property and divorce rights to
women?
Amanda
2004-04-20 16:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by Pan
That's debatable on both ends. Besides, there are many other
religions.
And your basis for asserting that Judaism gave no rights to women is
what?
Judaism before Islam.
Did it give any property and divorce rights to
women?
I haven't heard that they did.

I did hear that Rabbis started their prayers thanking God that they were not women.
Pan
2004-04-21 01:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by Pan
That's debatable on both ends. Besides, there are many other
religions.
And your basis for asserting that Judaism gave no rights to women is
what?
Judaism before Islam.
Did it give any property and divorce rights to
women?
I haven't heard that they did.
[snip]

You don't know much about Judaism. Therefore, you're forgiven for your
statement. :-)

But it was ignorant.

Start here:

http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

And here's a small excerpt:

The rights of women in traditional Judaism are much greater than they
were in the rest of Western civilization until this century. Women had
the right to buy, sell, and own property, and make their own
contracts, rights which women in Western countries (including America)
did not have until about 100 years ago. In fact, Proverbs 31:10-31,
which is read at Jewish weddings, speaks repeatedly of business acumen
as a trait to be prized in women (v. 11, 13, 16, and 18 especially).

Women have the right to be consulted with regard to their marriage.
Marital sex is regarded as the woman's right, and not the man's. Men
do not have the right to beat or mistreat their wives, a right that
was recognized by law in many Western countries until a few hundred
years ago. In cases of rape, a woman is generally presumed not to have
consented to the intercourse, even if she enjoyed it, even if she
consented after the sexual act began and declined a rescue! This is in
sharp contrast to American society, where even today rape victims
often have to overcome public suspicion that they "asked for it" or
"wanted it." Traditional Judaism recognizes that forced sexual
relations within the context of marriage are rape and are not
permitted; in many states in America, rape within marriage is still
not a criminal act.


Read the rest and click on links to find out more, positive and
negative.

Also, keep in mind that there are at least as many interpretations of
Jewish Law as there are interpreters of Jewish Law, so you will find a
wide spectrum of divergent commentaries on the role(s) of women in
Judaism, as you will on any other Jewish subject.

Best,

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-21 05:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by Pan
That's debatable on both ends. Besides, there are many other
religions.
And your basis for asserting that Judaism gave no rights to women is
what?
Judaism before Islam.
Did it give any property and divorce rights to
women?
I haven't heard that they did.
[snip]
You don't know much about Judaism. Therefore, you're forgiven for your
statement. :-)
But it was ignorant.
http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm
The rights of women in traditional Judaism are much greater than they
were in the rest of Western civilization until this century. Women had
the right to buy, sell, and own property, and make their own
contracts, rights which women in Western countries (including America)
did not have until about 100 years ago. In fact, Proverbs 31:10-31,
which is read at Jewish weddings, speaks repeatedly of business acumen
as a trait to be prized in women (v. 11, 13, 16, and 18 especially).
Women have the right to be consulted with regard to their marriage.
Marital sex is regarded as the woman's right, and not the man's. Men
do not have the right to beat or mistreat their wives, a right that
was recognized by law in many Western countries until a few hundred
years ago. In cases of rape, a woman is generally presumed not to have
consented to the intercourse, even if she enjoyed it, even if she
consented after the sexual act began and declined a rescue! This is in
sharp contrast to American society, where even today rape victims
often have to overcome public suspicion that they "asked for it" or
"wanted it." Traditional Judaism recognizes that forced sexual
relations within the context of marriage are rape and are not
permitted; in many states in America, rape within marriage is still
not a criminal act.
Read the rest and click on links to find out more, positive and
negative.
Also, keep in mind that there are at least as many interpretations of
Jewish Law as there are interpreters of Jewish Law,
These laws (for women in Judaism) didn't come into existence at the
very beginnng time the theology of Judaism came into existence. Why
don't you specifically give the time (the years) that these rights of
women in Judaism come into existence?
Post by Pan
so you will find a
wide spectrum of divergent commentaries on the role(s) of women in
Judaism, as you will on any other Jewish subject.
Best,
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2004-04-21 06:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by Pan
That's debatable on both ends. Besides, there are many other
religions.
And your basis for asserting that Judaism gave no rights to women is
what?
Judaism before Islam.
Did it give any property and divorce rights to
women?
I haven't heard that they did.
[snip]
You don't know much about Judaism. Therefore, you're forgiven for your
statement. :-)
But it was ignorant.
http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm
The rights of women in traditional Judaism are much greater than they
were in the rest of Western civilization until this century. Women had
the right to buy, sell, and own property, and make their own
contracts, rights which women in Western countries (including America)
did not have until about 100 years ago. In fact, Proverbs 31:10-31,
which is read at Jewish weddings, speaks repeatedly of business acumen
as a trait to be prized in women (v. 11, 13, 16, and 18 especially).
Women have the right to be consulted with regard to their marriage.
Marital sex is regarded as the woman's right, and not the man's. Men
do not have the right to beat or mistreat their wives, a right that
was recognized by law in many Western countries until a few hundred
years ago. In cases of rape, a woman is generally presumed not to have
consented to the intercourse, even if she enjoyed it, even if she
consented after the sexual act began and declined a rescue! This is in
sharp contrast to American society, where even today rape victims
often have to overcome public suspicion that they "asked for it" or
"wanted it." Traditional Judaism recognizes that forced sexual
relations within the context of marriage are rape and are not
permitted; in many states in America, rape within marriage is still
not a criminal act.
Read the rest and click on links to find out more, positive and
negative.
Also, keep in mind that there are at least as many interpretations of
Jewish Law as there are interpreters of Jewish Law,
These laws (for women in Judaism) didn't come into existence at the
very beginnng time the theology of Judaism came into existence. Why
don't you specifically give the time (the years) that these rights of
women in Judaism come into existence?
Why don't you do some research into how far back in history the
Biblical Book of Proverbs goes? You're aware it was written down quite
some time before the birth of Muhammad, right?

Do some thorough research and get back to us in a year or so. :-)

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
2004-04-21 13:22:08 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Pan
Why don't you do some research into how far back in history the
Biblical Book of Proverbs goes? You're aware it was written down quite
But these books only talk about the business acumen of women, not necessarily
their rights over these properties.
Post by Pan
some time before the birth of Muhammad, right?
Do some thorough research and get back to us in a year or so. :-)
Muslim scholars had done their research years ago and concluded what I had
mentioned. The rights that you quote are closer to Islamic rights of women,
then christian rights of women.
Amanda
2004-04-21 18:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by Pan
Why don't you do some research into how far back in history the
Biblical Book of Proverbs goes? You're aware it was written down quite
But these books only talk about the business acumen of women, not necessarily
their rights over these properties.
And also, I was referring to rights as a part of Legal System which
originated from the relgion.
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Pan
some time before the birth of Muhammad, right?
Do some thorough research and get back to us in a year or so. :-)
Muslim scholars had done their research years ago and concluded what I had
mentioned. The rights that you quote are closer to Islamic rights of women,
then christian rights of women.
Pan
2004-04-22 05:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by Pan
Why don't you do some research into how far back in history the
Biblical Book of Proverbs goes? You're aware it was written down quite
But these books only talk about the business acumen of women, not necessarily
their rights over these properties.
And also, I was referring to rights as a part of Legal System which
originated from the relgion.
Yet you're not interested in Jewish Law...

Please, stick to Burma or study more so that you know what you're
talking about. Or at least accept corrections on things you don't know
about more readily, rather than creating 10,000 bogus after-the-fact
redefinitions to try to get out of admitting you may have been
mistaken.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-22 16:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by Pan
Why don't you do some research into how far back in history the
Biblical Book of Proverbs goes? You're aware it was written down quite
But these books only talk about the business acumen of women, not necessarily
their rights over these properties.
And also, I was referring to rights as a part of Legal System which
originated from the relgion.
Yet you're not interested in Jewish Law...
You study the *devlopement* of Jewish Laws. It didn't come with
Judaism completely and you know it. You keep making claims without
providing evidence of date of first application much less evidence
that that *specific* law (with regard to women) had no infleunce from
anything $source$ other than the religion of Judaism.
Post by Pan
Please, stick to Burma or study more so that you know what you're
talking about. Or at least accept corrections on things you don't know
about more readily, rather than creating 10,000 bogus after-the-fact
redefinitions to try to get out of admitting you may have been
mistaken.
Why don't you just admit that you are the one who made incorrect
claims, without supporting evidence?
Post by Pan
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2004-04-23 07:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by Pan
Why don't you do some research into how far back in history the
Biblical Book of Proverbs goes? You're aware it was written down quite
But these books only talk about the business acumen of women, not necessarily
their rights over these properties.
And also, I was referring to rights as a part of Legal System which
originated from the relgion.
Yet you're not interested in Jewish Law...
You study the *devlopement* of Jewish Laws. It didn't come with
Judaism completely and you know it.
[snip]

The passage from _Proverbs_ proves that women could buy land under
Jewish Law. Figure out for yourself when Proverbs dates from. Are you
claiming it could have dated from some time after the Qur'an? Quit
arguments you can't win.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2004-04-22 05:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by Pan
Why don't you do some research into how far back in history the
Biblical Book of Proverbs goes? You're aware it was written down quite
But these books only talk about the business acumen of women, not necessarily
their rights over these properties.
This is a very famous text that describes the traditional ideal Jewish
woman:

"A woman of valor, who can find? Far beyond pearls is her value. Her
husband's heart trusts in her and he shall lack no fortune. She repays
his good, but never his harm, all the days of her life. She seeks out
wool and linen, and her hands work willingly, She is like a merchant's
ships; from afar she brings her sustenance. She rises while it is
still nighttime, and gives food to her household and a ration to her
maids. She considers a field and buys it; from the fruit of her
handiwork she plants a vineyard. She girds her loins with might and
strengthens her arms. She senses that her enterprise is good, so her
lamp is not extinguished at night. She puts her hand to the distaff,
and her palms support the spindle. She spreads out her palm to the
poor and extends her hands to the destitute. She fears not snow for
her household, for her entire household is clothed with scarlet wool.
Bedspreads she makes herself; linen and purple wool are her clothing.
Well-known at the gates is her husband as he sits with the elders of
the land. Garments she makes and sells, and she delivers a belt to the
peddler. Strength and splendor are her clothing, and smilingly she
awaits her last day. She opens her mouth with Wisdom, and the teaching
of kindness is on her tongue. She anticipates the needs of her
household, and the bread of idleness, she does not eat. Her children
rise and celebrate her; and her husband, he praises her: "Many
daughters have attained valor, but you have surpassed them all." False
is grace, and vain is beauty; a God-fearing woman, she should be
praised. Give her the fruit of her hands, and she will be praised at
the gates by her very own deeds." Proverbs 31:10-31

Next?
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Pan
some time before the birth of Muhammad, right?
Do some thorough research and get back to us in a year or so. :-)
Muslim scholars had done their research years ago and concluded what I had
mentioned. The rights that you quote are closer to Islamic rights of women,
then christian rights of women.
Probably so because the lot of women under Christianity was in the
main pretty bad until fairly recently. But my point is that these
Jewish laws predate the codification of Islamic rights of women by
hundreds of years.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
2004-04-23 06:51:46 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Pan
is grace, and vain is beauty; a God-fearing woman, she should be
praised. Give her the fruit of her hands, and she will be praised at
the gates by her very own deeds." Proverbs 31:10-31
Next?
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Pan
some time before the birth of Muhammad, right?
Do some thorough research and get back to us in a year or so. :-)
Muslim scholars had done their research years ago and concluded what I had
mentioned. The rights that you quote are closer to Islamic rights of women,
then christian rights of women.
Probably so because the lot of women under Christianity was in the
main pretty bad until fairly recently. But my point is that these
Jewish laws predate the codification of Islamic rights of women by
hundreds of years.
You must admit that you don't have the evidence conclusively. The holy books
could have praised women but the male chauvinist Rabbis interpret it
in other ways. We need proof of written laws guaranteeing the rights of
women, similar to Islamic written guarantees, and their dates of introduction.

Our muslim scholars certainly had done much research on this and your feeble
attempts at disputing them appear weak. You are still welcomed to introduce
new evidences, e.g. from the recently dug transcripts which were not
available to Islamic scholars early on.
Pan
2004-04-21 01:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by Pan
That's debatable on both ends. Besides, there are many other
religions.
And your basis for asserting that Judaism gave no rights to women is
what?
Judaism before Islam. Did it give any property and divorce rights to
women?
Yes.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-20 17:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
I was considering religions in the world as historians do: Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam.
Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
That's debatable on both ends.
Not according tot he current-day standard. There is no concept of
Creator in Bhuddism and complete submission to the Creator.
Post by Pan
Besides, there are many other
religions.
But those *religions* are not major one, even if you consider them
religions.
Post by Pan
And your basis for asserting that Judaism gave no rights to women is
what?
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2004-04-21 01:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
I was considering religions in the world as historians do: Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam.
Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
That's debatable on both ends.
Not according tot he current-day standard. There is no concept of
Creator in Bhuddism and complete submission to the Creator.
There are many people who consider themselves Buddhists and believe in
and pray to Gods. Just consider Lamaists like the Tibetans, for one
quick example.
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Besides, there are many other
religions.
But those *religions* are not major one,
That's also highly debatable. How many millions of practitioners do
they need for you to consider them "major"? How about some 20 million
adherents to Yoruba religion in its various forms (including Haitian
Vodun, Brazilian Condumble', Cuban and Puerto Rican Espiritismo,
Dominican Santeria)?
Post by Amanda
even if you consider them
religions.
I respect your advocacy of democracy in Burma and your defense of the
Rohingya people against rank bigots, but it seems to me like some
self-study in anthropology may be of some interest to you. Even
without that, though, a dictionary definition may be instructive, if
you have any interest in avoiding ethnocentric definitions which
exclude religions you might want to delegitimize as "uncivilized" or
something:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion&x=0&y=0

One entry found for religion.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from
religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective


The worship of the supernatural includes all animist religions in the
world, though it does not include Buddhists who do not worship Buddha,
Tana, et al. "A personal set or institutionalized system of religions
attitudes, beliefs, and practices" would include non-theist Buddhists,
however:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religious

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin
religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged
ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
- re·li·gious·ly adverb
- re·li·gious·ness noun

Note: "...devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality _or_ deity..."

Please don't follow the religio-centric attitudes of my beloved
Terengganu Malay friends that animists, who share many of the beliefs
that they hold or held in recent memory, "tak ada ugama" ("have no
religion"). After all, there are plenty of animists among the hill
tribes in Burma, are they not? And wouldn't you object if anyone were
suppressing _their_ right to practice their religion and live on their
land in peace and freedom, too? I suspect you would object.

Best,

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-21 05:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
I was considering religions in the world as historians do: Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam.
Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
That's debatable on both ends.
Not according tot he current-day standard. There is no concept of
Creator in Bhuddism and complete submission to the Creator.
There are many people who consider themselves Buddhists and believe in
and pray to Gods.
Gods, not the Omnipotent, Omnipresernt, *one and only* Creator God.
Post by Pan
Just consider Lamaists like the Tibetans, for one
quick example.
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Besides, there are many other
religions.
But those *religions* are not major one,
That's also highly debatable. How many millions of practitioners do
they need for you to consider them "major"?
Not just how many. Also depends on its influence on the course of
World History. The major ones are: The 3 monotheistic religion,
Hinudism, and Bhuddism. Only in late 20th century and now (21st
century), many other smaller groups are appreciated.
Post by Pan
How about some 20 million
adherents to Yoruba religion in its various forms (including Haitian
Vodun, Brazilian Condumble', Cuban and Puerto Rican Espiritismo,
Dominican Santeria)?
Not the population, not the population.
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
even if you consider them
religions.
I respect your advocacy of democracy in Burma and your defense of the
Rohingya people against rank bigots, but it seems to me like some
self-study in anthropology may be of some interest to you. Even
without that, though, a dictionary definition may be instructive, if
you have any interest in avoiding ethnocentric definitions which
exclude religions you might want to delegitimize as "uncivilized" or
I don't think you know what "Rohingya" means.

I read about Rohingya people from them. I know someone who is
Rohingya. His father's granfather was Rohingya. His cousin form his
mother's side also has Chinese blood but they are Muslims. They have
been in Burma for many many many many many many many many many .....
generations, i.e many cneturies.
Post by Pan
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion&x=0&y=0
One entry found for religion.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from
religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective
The worship of the supernatural includes all animist religions in the
world, though it does not include Buddhists who do not worship Buddha,
Tana, et al.
Not all those who claim Bhuddists practise pure Bhuddism. Burmese
Bhuddist incorporate what is called "Nats", in their Bhuddism.
Post by Pan
"A personal set or institutionalized system of religions
attitudes, beliefs, and practices" would include non-theist Buddhists,
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religious
Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin
religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged
ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
- re·li·gious·ly adverb
- re·li·gious·ness noun
Note: "...devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality _or_ deity..."
Please don't follow the religio-centric attitudes of my beloved
Terengganu Malay friends that animists, who share many of the beliefs
that they hold or held in recent memory, "tak ada ugama" ("have no
religion").
Animism is different from Bhuddism. Bhuddism is not considered
religion in the same sense as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Animism didn't alter the course of history as Chritianity and Islam.
With a twist of fate, all middle east could be Christians today or all
Europe could be of Islam today. You have to read more why that's the
case.
Post by Pan
After all, there are plenty of animists among the hill
tribes in Burma, are they not?
And wouldn't you object if anyone were
suppressing _their_ right to practice their religion and live on their
land in peace and freedom, too? I suspect you would object.
Do you really have facts on who are the ones suppressing whose right
to practise religion (other Bhuddism) in Burma? I don't think you do.
Read Amnesty Internationl Reports.
Post by Pan
Best,
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2004-04-21 06:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
That's debatable on both ends.
Not according tot he current-day standard. There is no concept of
Creator in Bhuddism and complete submission to the Creator.
There are many people who consider themselves Buddhists and believe in
and pray to Gods.
Gods, not the Omnipotent, Omnipresernt, *one and only* Creator God.
You don't need only one God to have a religion!!!!
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Besides, there are many other
religions.
But those *religions* are not major one,
That's also highly debatable. How many millions of practitioners do
they need for you to consider them "major"?
Not just how many. Also depends on its influence on the course of
World History. The major ones are: The 3 monotheistic religion,
Hinudism, and Bhuddism. Only in late 20th century and now (21st
century), many other smaller groups are appreciated.
You have a view of history that makes sense to you, but I doubt it
would make much sense to any self-respecting historian. You want to
claim that polytheistic religions like Hinduism and the ancient
Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek, and Roman religions didn't influence
the course of world history? You're getting further and further into
deep water.
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
How about some 20 million
adherents to Yoruba religion in its various forms (including Haitian
Vodun, Brazilian Condumble', Cuban and Puerto Rican Espiritismo,
Dominican Santeria)?
Not the population, not the population.
So some 20 million people don't have much importance, nor does their
culture, music, dance, etc.? Where do you think much
Afro-Latin-American music comes from? You've heard of Voodoo, right?
That's had little effect on the world?
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
I respect your advocacy of democracy in Burma and your defense of the
Rohingya people against rank bigots, but it seems to me like some
self-study in anthropology may be of some interest to you. Even
without that, though, a dictionary definition may be instructive, if
you have any interest in avoiding ethnocentric definitions which
exclude religions you might want to delegitimize as "uncivilized" or
I don't think you know what "Rohingya" means.
You mean a meaning other than the name of a people? I don't speak
Burmese, so if the word means something other than a name, I wouldn't
know.
Post by Amanda
I read about Rohingya people from them. I know someone who is
Rohingya. His father's granfather was Rohingya. His cousin form his
mother's side also has Chinese blood but they are Muslims. They have
been in Burma for many many many many many many many many many .....
generations, i.e many cneturies.
Right, so I understand.
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
The worship of the supernatural includes all animist religions in the
world, though it does not include Buddhists who do not worship Buddha,
Tana, et al.
Not all those who claim Bhuddists practise pure Bhuddism. Burmese
Bhuddist incorporate what is called "Nats", in their Bhuddism.
I knew that, too.
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Please don't follow the religio-centric attitudes of my beloved
Terengganu Malay friends that animists, who share many of the beliefs
that they hold or held in recent memory, "tak ada ugama" ("have no
religion").
Animism is different from Bhuddism.
I'm well aware of that!
Post by Amanda
Bhuddism is not considered
religion in the same sense as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Yes, it's a different _kind_ of religion!
Post by Amanda
Animism didn't alter the course of history as Chritianity and Islam.
You're deluded! Animism includes belief in witchcraft. You want to
sugest that belief in witchcraft didn't alter the course of history?
What about the historical influence of people who believed
spirituality resides in nature, such as Emerson and Thoreau? What
about Japanese Shintoism? We could go on and on with this. Why don't
you get a basic text on comparative religion and a basic intro to
anthropology text? You damage your credibility when you spout off like
this.
Post by Amanda
With a twist of fate, all middle east could be Christians today or all
Europe could be of Islam today.
The Middle East _was_ mostly Christian before the Arabs captured one
land after another. And yes, the Muslims almost took over Europe, and
I often feel that I'm sorry they didn't. If you're referring obliquely
to the Crusades, I don't see where they had any chance for long-term
success.
Post by Amanda
You have to read more why that's the
case.
What makes you think I don't know about these things? You're a fine
person to try to teach me history!
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
After all, there are plenty of animists among the hill
tribes in Burma, are they not?
And wouldn't you object if anyone were
suppressing _their_ right to practice their religion and live on their
land in peace and freedom, too? I suspect you would object.
Do you really have facts on who are the ones suppressing whose right
to practise religion (other Bhuddism) in Burma? I don't think you do.
Read Amnesty Internationl Reports.
What makes you think I haven't?

My argument isn't with your opposition to the thugs that run Burma. My
argument is with your ignorant remarks about world history and
religion. And my unsolicited advice is for you to either stick with
what you know and eloquently advocate your position in favor of
democracy and human rights for all in Burma or to seek more knowledge
instead of clinging to prejudices based on ignorance of general
history and anthropology.

Your heart is in the right place, though.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-21 18:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Bhuddism is not considered religion; rather, it's a way of life.
That's debatable on both ends.
Not according tot he current-day standard. There is no concept of
Creator in Bhuddism and complete submission to the Creator.
There are many people who consider themselves Buddhists and believe in
and pray to Gods.
Gods, not the Omnipotent, Omnipresernt, *one and only* Creator God.
You don't need only one God to have a religion!!!!
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Besides, there are many other
religions.
But those *religions* are not major one,
That's also highly debatable. How many millions of practitioners do
they need for you to consider them "major"?
Not just how many. Also depends on its influence on the course of
World History. The major ones are: The 3 monotheistic religion,
Hinudism, and Bhuddism. Only in late 20th century and now (21st
century), many other smaller groups are appreciated.
You have a view of history that makes sense to you, but I doubt it
would make much sense to any self-respecting historian. You want to
claim that polytheistic religions like Hinduism and the ancient
Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek, and Roman religions didn't influence
the course of world history? You're getting further and further into
deep water.
Well, if you include ancient times and the dead religions, things
would get complicated. Also, I mentioned that I was using major ones
only.

You know very well that the religions of the ancient
Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek, and Roman have been replaced by
monotheistic religions. Some scholars says that Hinusim is a relgion
because there are some Hindus who belive in one Supreme God equivalent
to Creator God. But when I mentioned that to a Hindu student - a
Brahman, she was quiet. Obviously, she didn't agree with that.
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
How about some 20 million
adherents to Yoruba religion in its various forms (including Haitian
Vodun, Brazilian Condumble', Cuban and Puerto Rican Espiritismo,
Dominican Santeria)?
Not the population, not the population.
So some 20 million people don't have much importance, nor does their
culture, music, dance, etc.?
Not that they didn't have importance contributions but just that they
didn't try to evangelize like Christianity and Islam did and hence
didn't become dominant politically in a significant way.
Post by Pan
Where do you think much
Afro-Latin-American music comes from? You've heard of Voodoo, right?
That's had little effect on the world?
That may be having affects on the world *nowadays* but they haven't
changed the course of history YET the *way* Christianity and Islam
have done. By that, I meant, they didn't cause abrupt alteration.
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
I respect your advocacy of democracy in Burma and your defense of the
Rohingya people against rank bigots, but it seems to me like some
self-study in anthropology may be of some interest to you. Even
without that, though, a dictionary definition may be instructive, if
you have any interest in avoiding ethnocentric definitions which
exclude religions you might want to delegitimize as "uncivilized" or
I don't think you know what "Rohingya" means.
You mean a meaning other than the name of a people? I don't speak
Burmese, so if the word means something other than a name, I wouldn't
know.
I have to look for the definition again if I were to post it instaed
of interpresting it myself.
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
I read about Rohingya people from them. I know someone who is
Rohingya. His father's granfather was Rohingya. His cousin form his
mother's side also has Chinese blood but they are Muslims. They have
been in Burma for many many many many many many many many many .....
generations, i.e many cneturies.
Right, so I understand.
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
The worship of the supernatural includes all animist religions in the
world, though it does not include Buddhists who do not worship Buddha,
Tana, et al.
Not all those who claim Bhuddists practise pure Bhuddism. Burmese
Bhuddist incorporate what is called "Nats", in their Bhuddism.
I knew that, too.
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Please don't follow the religio-centric attitudes of my beloved
Terengganu Malay friends that animists, who share many of the beliefs
that they hold or held in recent memory, "tak ada ugama" ("have no
religion").
Animism is different from Bhuddism.
I'm well aware of that!
Post by Amanda
Bhuddism is not considered
religion in the same sense as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Yes, it's a different _kind_ of religion!
That's what I meant.

In fact, if I were to practise some teaching of Bhuddism, I would not
include some concepts (which may not even eb a part of true Bhuddism)
such as beliving in incrantion and stuff. Not that I don't believe in
it. I just don't know what to believe. For me, it's not as important
as other aspects of Bhuddism.
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Animism didn't alter the course of history as Chritianity and Islam.
You're deluded! Animism includes belief in witchcraft. You want to
sugest that belief in witchcraft didn't alter the course of history?
They were mostly taken over by monotheistic religion. But I am aware
that it is making a come-back.
Post by Pan
What about the historical influence of people who believed
spirituality resides in nature, such as Emerson and Thoreau? What
about Japanese Shintoism? We could go on and on with this. Why don't
you get a basic text on comparative religion and a basic intro to
anthropology text? You damage your credibility when you spout off like
this.
Post by Amanda
With a twist of fate, all middle east could be Christians today or all
Europe could be of Islam today.
The Middle East _was_ mostly Christian
But it was rudimentary Christianity
Post by Pan
before the Arabs captured one
land after another.
The Christains themselves were Arabs too.
Post by Pan
And yes, the Muslims almost took over Europe, and
I often feel that I'm sorry they didn't.
I assume that you are referring to the atrocities of Catholic Church.
Post by Pan
If you're referring obliquely
to the Crusades, I don't see where they had any chance for long-term
success.
I wasn't referring to the Crusades.
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
You have to read more why that's the
case.
What makes you think I don't know about these things? You're a fine
person to try to teach me history!
I only meant the details of interaction between islamic Empire and
Christendom.
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
After all, there are plenty of animists among the hill
tribes in Burma, are they not?
And wouldn't you object if anyone were
suppressing _their_ right to practice their religion and live on their
land in peace and freedom, too? I suspect you would object.
Do you really have facts on who are the ones suppressing whose right
to practise religion (other Bhuddism) in Burma? I don't think you do.
Read Amnesty Internationl Reports.
What makes you think I haven't?
What kind of answer it that?
Post by Pan
My argument isn't with your opposition to the thugs that run Burma. My
argument is with your ignorant remarks about world history and
religion. And my unsolicited advice is for you to either stick with
what you know and eloquently advocate your position in favor of
democracy and human rights for all in Burma or to seek more knowledge
instead of clinging to prejudices based on ignorance of general
history and anthropology.
You say things form your perspective and I say things from my
perspective which were based on what we have been exposed and got a
chance to read. You wouldn't know the animositities toward Muslism by
Hindu fanatics and their propaganda. (BTW, I am not condoning the
fanatics on the Muslism side.)

Do you even know about the Hindu mob burning Muslimm neighborhod,
pouring gasoline, including the pregannt women and babies while the
police watched it idly. This happened about 2 years ago. There was
this Muslism guy who chose to live in Hindu neighborhood, to make
statement of co-existence, and his family was gone too.

We both have equals right to state our persepctives. You can't tell
me what to say and how to say it.
Post by Pan
Your heart is in the right place, though.
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2004-04-22 06:14:56 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
After all, there are plenty of animists among the hill
tribes in Burma, are they not?
And wouldn't you object if anyone were
suppressing _their_ right to practice their religion and live on their
land in peace and freedom, too? I suspect you would object.
Do you really have facts on who are the ones suppressing whose right
to practise religion (other Bhuddism) in Burma? I don't think you do.
Read Amnesty Internationl Reports.
What makes you think I haven't?
What kind of answer it that?
I have indeed followed the situation in Burma.

The problem is that people who think animists "have no religion"
usually support efforts to suppress animist religions or induce
animists to convert to what they consider a "major" religion (usually
Christianity or Islam, but I guess in Burma, it would be
Buddhism-as-pratice-in-Burma). Animists have just as much right to
practice their religion as Muslims and Buddhists do. Amnesty
International certainly thinks so!

[snip]
Post by Amanda
Do you even know about the Hindu mob burning Muslimm neighborhod,
pouring gasoline, including the pregannt women and babies while the
police watched it idly. This happened about 2 years ago. There was
this Muslism guy who chose to live in Hindu neighborhood, to make
statement of co-existence, and his family was gone too.
I personally know a young woman from Ahmedabad who was there during
the atrocities.
Post by Amanda
We both have equals right to state our persepctives. You can't tell
me what to say and how to say it.
I can tell you when you're making ignorant remarks, though, and I can
give you advice. Whether you choose to take it or not is up to you.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-22 16:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
After all, there are plenty of animists among the hill
tribes in Burma, are they not?
And wouldn't you object if anyone were
suppressing _their_ right to practice their religion and live on their
land in peace and freedom, too? I suspect you would object.
Do you really have facts on who are the ones suppressing whose right
to practise religion (other Bhuddism) in Burma? I don't think you do.
Read Amnesty Internationl Reports.
What makes you think I haven't?
What kind of answer it that?
I have indeed followed the situation in Burma.
The problem is that people who think animists "have no religion"
usually support efforts to suppress animist religions or induce
animists to convert to what they consider a "major" religion (usually
Christianity or Islam, but I guess in Burma, it would be
Buddhism-as-pratice-in-Burma). Animists have just as much right to
practice their religion as Muslims and Buddhists do. Amnesty
International certainly thinks so!
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Do you even know about the Hindu mob burning Muslimm neighborhod,
pouring gasoline, including the pregannt women and babies while the
police watched it idly. This happened about 2 years ago. There was
this Muslism guy who chose to live in Hindu neighborhood, to make
statement of co-existence, and his family was gone too.
I personally know a young woman from Ahmedabad who was there during
the atrocities.
Post by Amanda
We both have equals right to state our persepctives. You can't tell
me what to say and how to say it.
I can tell you when you're making ignorant remarks, though, and I can
give you advice. Whether you choose to take it or not is up to you.
You accused me of making ignorant remark while you fail to provide a
shred of evidence of your claim that Judaism was the first religion or
one of the first religions that gives rights to women. Amusing indeed.

And then you go around scratching info to support your vague claim by
making any type of practises as religion, using the term "Amnesty
Int'l" instaed of provididng date info (of application as a part of
legal system) in Judaism. Nice try!
Post by Pan
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2004-04-23 07:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
You accused me of making ignorant remark while you fail to provide a
shred of evidence of your claim that Judaism was the first religion or
one of the first religions that gives rights to women. Amusing indeed.
[snip]

Now, you're being a complete idiot. In case you didn't read this post,
I provide it for you free of charge. :-P
Post by Amanda
...
Post by Pan
Why don't you do some research into how far back in history the
Biblical Book of Proverbs goes? You're aware it was written down quite
But these books only talk about the business acumen of women, not necessarily
their rights over these properties.
This is a very famous text that describes the traditional ideal Jewish
woman:

"A woman of valor, who can find? Far beyond pearls is her value. Her
husband's heart trusts in her and he shall lack no fortune. She repays
his good, but never his harm, all the days of her life. She seeks out
wool and linen, and her hands work willingly, She is like a merchant's
ships; from afar she brings her sustenance. She rises while it is
still nighttime, and gives food to her household and a ration to her
maids. She considers a field and buys it; from the fruit of her
handiwork she plants a vineyard. She girds her loins with might and
strengthens her arms. She senses that her enterprise is good, so her
lamp is not extinguished at night. She puts her hand to the distaff,
and her palms support the spindle. She spreads out her palm to the
poor and extends her hands to the destitute. She fears not snow for
her household, for her entire household is clothed with scarlet wool.
Bedspreads she makes herself; linen and purple wool are her clothing.
Well-known at the gates is her husband as he sits with the elders of
the land. Garments she makes and sells, and she delivers a belt to the
peddler. Strength and splendor are her clothing, and smilingly she
awaits her last day. She opens her mouth with Wisdom, and the teaching
of kindness is on her tongue. She anticipates the needs of her
household, and the bread of idleness, she does not eat. Her children
rise and celebrate her; and her husband, he praises her: "Many
daughters have attained valor, but you have surpassed them all." False
is grace, and vain is beauty; a God-fearing woman, she should be
praised. Give her the fruit of her hands, and she will be praised at
the gates by her very own deeds." Proverbs 31:10-31


If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
flyingdragon
2004-04-19 18:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
Michael
Oh, I'd be delighted to know what "rights" muslim women "are given".
Amanda
2004-04-20 01:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by flyingdragon
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
Michael
Oh, I'd be delighted to know what "rights" muslim women "are given".
You are living in Information Age. Failure to be informed is your
problem. Google is your friend.

BTW (By the way), you might want to learn things in its histroical
contetxt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) http://www.mwlusa.org/publications/essays/herstory.html

An excerpt:

Conclusion

The advent of Islam brought profound changes to the Arabian society
in general and to women in particular.

(2) http://muslim-canada.org/pickthall.htm

An excerpt:
<< Considering that this lecture was given in 1927, the reader will
no doubt be astonished by just how progressive this speech was
concerning women's rights. Yet Pickthall was simply articulating what
a woman's Islamic rights were. >>

Another excerpt:

<<<< Now in terms of Pickthall's lambastment of the Indian male's
treatment of women on the Indian subcontinent, unfortunately many of
his concerns are still valid today. Indeed much of this lecture still
applies to this day. However one must clearly understand that
Pickthall does not criticize nor find any fault with the
Quranic/Islamic system of veil, but rather the un-Islamic Indian-style
system known as the Purdah system in the Urdu language. In the Quranic
terminology it is referred to as Hijab which literally means a
'partition' or 'curtain' which veils or conceals.

As to the reason why the Indian-style of Purdah/Hijab is un-Islamic,
one must realize and appreciate the fact that the commandment in the
Qur'an in Chapter 33, verse 53, with respect to the Hijab, applies
only to the "Mothers of the Believers" (the wives of the Holy Prophet,
p.b.u.h.) whereas the wording of the Qur'an in Chapter 33 verse 55,
applies to all Muslim women in general. No screen or Hijab (Purdah)
is mentioned in this verse -- it prescribes only a veil to cover the
bosom and modesty in dress. Hence the unlawfulness of the practice of
the Indian-style system of Purdah. Under this system, the Hijab is
not only imposed upon all Muslim women, but it is also quite often
forced upon them in an obligatory and mandatory fashion. >>>>>



BTW, Pickthall (1875-1936) was an English Convert: See
http://www.modjourn.brown.edu/mjp/Bios/Pickthall.htm

--------------------------------------

Here is a BBC brief history of Islamic Spain (711-1492);

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain/index.shtml


An excerpt:

Islamic Spain (711-1492)

Islamic Spain was a multi-cultural mix of the people of three great
monotheistic religions: Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

For much of the time, the three groups managed to get along together,
and to benefit from the presence of each other.

It brought a degree of civilisation to Europe that matched the
*heights* of the Roman Empire and the Italian Renaissance.
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
2004-04-20 07:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by flyingdragon
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
What religion is that? What we mean is rights actually granted by the
religion rather
than the government or law of the land.
It is well documented in Islam that women must be given certain rights.
Post by flyingdragon
Post by Pan
Michael
Oh, I'd be delighted to know what "rights" muslim women "are given".
rights of ownership and inheritence. Even rights to agree and disagree.
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-20 17:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women
ROFL
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
It is well documented in Islam that women must be given certain rights.
even more ROFL
freedomlover
2004-04-21 01:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women
ROFL
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
It is well documented in Islam that women must be given certain rights.
even more ROFL
Any European knows the history of Renaissance and about the people who
helped triggered The Renaissance, i.e Muslim Spain. And the truly
inquisitve European would learn a little history about the religion of
those people who made the way for Renaissance, reading unbiased
sources and will would know that the rights given to women in Islam
was the first of its kind.
Pan
2004-04-21 02:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by freedomlover
Any European knows the history of Renaissance and about the people who
helped triggered The Renaissance, i.e Muslim Spain. And the truly
inquisitve European would learn a little history about the religion of
those people who made the way for Renaissance, reading unbiased
sources
We're basically in agreement here, though it's worth pointing out the
the Caliphates of the Golden Age tolerated a lot of things that would
be condemned as heretical today in most of the Arab world.
Post by freedomlover
and will would know that the rights given to women in Islam
was the first of its kind.
I'm really mystified by this claim. I really think it reflects a lack
of wide knowledge about non-Muslim religions and cultures.

Have you looked into any matrilineal societies?

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-21 05:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
Post by freedomlover
Any European knows the history of Renaissance and about the people who
helped triggered The Renaissance, i.e Muslim Spain. And the truly
inquisitve European would learn a little history about the religion of
those people who made the way for Renaissance, reading unbiased
sources
We're basically in agreement here, though it's worth pointing out the
the Caliphates of the Golden Age tolerated a lot of things that would
be condemned as heretical today in most of the Arab world.
True. Today, Islamic Laws twisted, much less to be adjusted to time,
by those in charge.
Post by Pan
Post by freedomlover
and will would know that the rights given to women in Islam
was the first of its kind.
I'm really mystified by this claim. I really think it reflects a lack
of wide knowledge about non-Muslim religions and cultures.
Even *if* there were other religions with such laws, they were minor
religions and did affect the world at large.

The rights of Muslim women as defined in Islam was applied as Law (in
Islamic Empire). That may be the reason historian states that it was
the first of it kind.
Post by Pan
Have you looked into any matrilineal societies?
Well, I was just going with political entities that changed the course
of history in significant way.
Post by Pan
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2004-04-21 06:24:58 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by freedomlover
and will would know that the rights given to women in Islam
was the first of its kind.
I'm really mystified by this claim. I really think it reflects a lack
of wide knowledge about non-Muslim religions and cultures.
Even *if* there were other religions with such laws, they were minor
religions and did affect the world at large.
You think Judaism didn't affect the world at large? That's a strange
position on history.
Post by Amanda
The rights of Muslim women as defined in Islam was applied as Law (in
Islamic Empire). That may be the reason historian states that it was
the first of it kind.
So now we have to look at what rights were given to women in every
other empire that ever existed prior to the Caliphates...
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Have you looked into any matrilineal societies?
Well, I was just going with political entities that changed the course
of history in significant way.
I guess someone who is an expert on the position of women in every
earlier political entity will have to speak up...

Better to make sustainable claims, as this has sidetracked you from
what I think were your main points.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-21 18:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by freedomlover
and will would know that the rights given to women in Islam
was the first of its kind.
I'm really mystified by this claim. I really think it reflects a lack
of wide knowledge about non-Muslim religions and cultures.
Even *if* there were other religions with such laws, they were minor
religions and did affect the world at large.
You think Judaism didn't affect the world at large? That's a strange
position on history.
Now..you are strecthing. If not for Judaism, Christianity and Islam
would not have come into existence. Enough said.
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
The rights of Muslim women as defined in Islam was applied as Law (in
Islamic Empire). That may be the reason historian states that it was
the first of it kind.
So now we have to look at what rights were given to women in every
other empire that ever existed prior to the Caliphates...
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Have you looked into any matrilineal societies?
Well, I was just going with political entities that changed the course
of history in significant way.
I guess someone who is an expert on the position of women in every
earlier political entity will have to speak up...
Better to make sustainable claims, as this has sidetracked you from
what I think were your main points.
Yes, you caused it to get sidetracked.
Post by Pan
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2004-04-22 06:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by freedomlover
and will would know that the rights given to women in Islam
was the first of its kind.
I'm really mystified by this claim. I really think it reflects a lack
of wide knowledge about non-Muslim religions and cultures.
Even *if* there were other religions with such laws, they were minor
religions and did affect the world at large.
You think Judaism didn't affect the world at large? That's a strange
position on history.
Now..you are strecthing. If not for Judaism, Christianity and Islam
would not have come into existence. Enough said.
Thereby disproving your claim above.
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Better to make sustainable claims, as this has sidetracked you from
what I think were your main points.
Yes, you caused it to get sidetracked.
I'm to blame for pointing out that you were making an incorrect
assertion? Nice try. :-P

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-22 16:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by freedomlover
and will would know that the rights given to women in Islam
was the first of its kind.
I'm really mystified by this claim. I really think it reflects a lack
of wide knowledge about non-Muslim religions and cultures.
Even *if* there were other religions with such laws, they were minor
religions and did affect the world at large.
You think Judaism didn't affect the world at large? That's a strange
position on history.
Now..you are strecthing. If not for Judaism, Christianity and Islam
would not have come into existence. Enough said.
Thereby disproving your claim above.
Disprove what? I am sure you knew what I was saying was from
*theological* aspect, i.e theological aspect of Judaism that shoot off
two more monotheistic religions and nothing more.
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Better to make sustainable claims, as this has sidetracked you from
what I think were your main points.
Yes, you caused it to get sidetracked.
I'm to blame for pointing out that you were making an incorrect
assertion? Nice try. :-P
You are twisting again. It seems that something bothers you that Islam
was the first religion that applies rights of women as a part of Legal
System and you keep refuting about it using Judaism but without a
shred of evidence of rights for women applied for Jewish woemn as a
part of Legal System with the time of it's first application. If you
plan to continue with that vague claim of yours, I see no point in
wasting my time anymore.
Post by Pan
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
2004-04-21 13:35:51 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Pan
I'm really mystified by this claim. I really think it reflects a lack
of wide knowledge about non-Muslim religions and cultures.
Have you looked into any matrilineal societies?
What is matrilineal? Does it mean the women as leaders in the family?

I am aware of these cultures and even exist within Islamic SEA, Minangkabau,
and Simunul(my race).

However I am not sure if the society in China that promotes this women first
cultures were earlier than Islam, let alone Mongolian Islam.

They could have learned it from Islam as shown in Indonesian Minangkabau and
Philippino Simunul. It could all be due to Islamic emphasis that Heaven is
in the feet of the mother.
Pan
2004-04-22 06:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by Pan
I'm really mystified by this claim. I really think it reflects a lack
of wide knowledge about non-Muslim religions and cultures.
Have you looked into any matrilineal societies?
What is matrilineal? Does it mean the women as leaders in the family?
Basically, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineal

Matrilineality

(Redirected from Matrilineal)

Matrilineality is a system in which one belongs to one's mother's
lineage; it may also involve the inheritance of property or titles
through the female line. However, the latter does not always hold; in
some societies, titles or property went to the male heir(s) of the
nearest female relative.

A matriline is a line of descent from a female ancestor to a
descendant (of either sex) in which the individuals in all intervening
generations are female. In a matrilineal descent system, an individual
is considered to belong to the same descent group as his or her
mother. This is in contrast to the more common pattern of patrilineal
descent.

In some cultures, membership of a group is inherited matrilinearly.
For example, it is traditionally said that one is a Jew if one's
mother (rather than one's father) is a Jew.

Another example of a matrilineal culture is the Minangkabau culture of
West Sumatra.

Compare: Patrilineality
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
I am aware of these cultures and even exist within Islamic SEA, Minangkabau,
and Simunul(my race).
Women are also traditionally powerful in Aceh.
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
However I am not sure if the society in China that promotes this women first
cultures were earlier than Islam, let alone Mongolian Islam.
I imagine is would be possible to find sources for descriptions of
matrilineal societies by ancient Roman, Greek, and Chinese historians
and merchant voyagers, but it will probably take more than a Google
search on "history of matrilineal."
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
They could have learned it from Islam as shown in Indonesian Minangkabau and
Philippino Simunul. It could all be due to Islamic emphasis that Heaven is
in the feet of the mother.
In that case, why are Arab societies all patriarchal?

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
2004-04-22 10:45:27 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Pan
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
They could have learned it from Islam as shown in Indonesian Minangkabau and
Philippino Simunul. It could all be due to Islamic emphasis that Heaven is
in the feet of the mother.
In that case, why are Arab societies all patriarchal?
Probably because Arab men are more firm and rough compared to Polynesian
men. Islam does not dictate either way. It is up to the families to decide
for themselves.
Pan
2004-04-23 07:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
...
Post by Pan
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
They could have learned it from Islam as shown in Indonesian Minangkabau and
Philippino Simunul. It could all be due to Islamic emphasis that Heaven is
in the feet of the mother.
In that case, why are Arab societies all patriarchal?
Probably because Arab men are more firm and rough compared to Polynesian
men. Islam does not dictate either way. It is up to the families to decide
for themselves.
Interesting viewpoint. Thanks.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2004-04-21 01:08:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:59:06 +0800, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad"
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
What religion is that?
Judaism, for one.
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
What we mean is rights actually granted by the
religion rather
than the government or law of the land.
It is well documented in Islam that women must be given certain rights.
Agreed, but it wasn't the first religion to do so.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-21 05:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:59:06 +0800, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad"
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
What religion is that?
Judaism, for one.
At which stage (what time in history) of Judaism?

The laws of Judaism were constantly developed. Talmud didn't come with
the Old Testament.
Post by Pan
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
What we mean is rights actually granted by the
religion rather
than the government or law of the land.
It is well documented in Islam that women must be given certain rights.
Agreed, but it wasn't the first religion to do so.
Judaism (theology) may be before Islam but the rigths given to women
in Judaism didn't start at the time of the beginning stage of Judaism.
Post by Pan
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2004-04-21 06:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:59:06 +0800, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad"
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
What religion is that?
Judaism, for one.
At which stage (what time in history) of Judaism?
The laws of Judaism were constantly developed. Talmud didn't come with
the Old Testament.
The Talmud was _written down_ later than the Tanakh, but that doesn't
mean that the Oral Law is newer, only that it was handed down orally
for a longer time than the Tanakh. Orthodox Jews generally agree that
the Oral Law was given to the Jews on Mount Sinai at the same time as
the Ten Commandments. You might not believe that, but I don't think
you have an evidentiary basis for offering a counter-assertion.
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
What we mean is rights actually granted by the
religion rather
than the government or law of the land.
It is well documented in Islam that women must be given certain rights.
Agreed, but it wasn't the first religion to do so.
Judaism (theology) may be before Islam but the rigths given to women
in Judaism didn't start at the time of the beginning stage of Judaism.
How do you know?

And now, you have to deal with the Biblical quotations in the link I
provided to you...

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-21 18:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:59:06 +0800, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad"
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
What religion is that?
Judaism, for one.
At which stage (what time in history) of Judaism?
The laws of Judaism were constantly developed. Talmud didn't come with
the Old Testament.
The Talmud was _written down_ later than the Tanakh, but that doesn't
mean that the Oral Law is newer, only that it was handed down orally
for a longer time than the Tanakh. Orthodox Jews generally agree that
the Oral Law was given to the Jews on Mount Sinai at the same time as
the Ten Commandments. You might not believe that, but I don't think
you have an evidentiary basis for offering a counter-assertion.
Why don't you provide a specific date (time) that those womens right
(in Judaism) were applied as a part of law (Legal System)?

Only then, we could make comparison who applied it first?
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
What we mean is rights actually granted by the
religion rather
than the government or law of the land.
It is well documented in Islam that women must be given certain rights.
Agreed, but it wasn't the first religion to do so.
Judaism (theology) may be before Islam but the rigths given to women
in Judaism didn't start at the time of the beginning stage of Judaism.
How do you know?
And now, you have to deal with the Biblical quotations in the link I
provided to you...
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2004-04-22 06:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:59:06 +0800, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad"
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
What religion is that?
Judaism, for one.
At which stage (what time in history) of Judaism?
The laws of Judaism were constantly developed. Talmud didn't come with
the Old Testament.
The Talmud was _written down_ later than the Tanakh, but that doesn't
mean that the Oral Law is newer, only that it was handed down orally
for a longer time than the Tanakh. Orthodox Jews generally agree that
the Oral Law was given to the Jews on Mount Sinai at the same time as
the Ten Commandments. You might not believe that, but I don't think
you have an evidentiary basis for offering a counter-assertion.
Why don't you provide a specific date (time) that those womens right
(in Judaism) were applied as a part of law (Legal System)?
Only then, we could make comparison who applied it first?
The completed writing of the Talmud, both volumes, also predates the
Quran. There's your proof!

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
2004-04-22 10:38:11 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Why don't you provide a specific date (time) that those womens right
(in Judaism) were applied as a part of law (Legal System)?
Only then, we could make comparison who applied it first?
The completed writing of the Talmud, both volumes, also predates the
Quran. There's your proof!
That is some proof but not the ultimate proof. We need to study the volumes
to know the date of publications etc. before we can make conclusive decision.
Amanda
2004-04-22 16:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
Post by Amanda
Post by Pan
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:59:06 +0800, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad"
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Pan
[snip]
Post by Amanda
Islam was the first religion that specifically gives rights to women
[snip]
You're overreaching now. Islam does give rights to women but was
certainly not the first religion to do so.
What religion is that?
Judaism, for one.
At which stage (what time in history) of Judaism?
The laws of Judaism were constantly developed. Talmud didn't come with
the Old Testament.
The Talmud was _written down_ later than the Tanakh, but that doesn't
mean that the Oral Law is newer, only that it was handed down orally
for a longer time than the Tanakh. Orthodox Jews generally agree that
the Oral Law was given to the Jews on Mount Sinai at the same time as
the Ten Commandments. You might not believe that, but I don't think
you have an evidentiary basis for offering a counter-assertion.
Why don't you provide a specific date (time) that those womens right
(in Judaism) were applied as a part of law (Legal System)?
Only then, we could make comparison who applied it first?
The completed writing of the Talmud, both volumes, also predates the
Quran. There's your proof!
What kind of proof is that? Where is date info?

Beside, Talmud didn't come as a part of religion. There were many
debates before it was established. My nephew has a book on that -
that's where I read about it - and I guess I have to go get it and
give that book info here that Talmud is not a part of Judaism that way
Sharia came with Islam.

In Islam's case, the legal rights of women came into existence *with*
religion and was *applied* as a part of legal system.

If you plan to continue refuting it with your vague claims (no date,
etc.), I don't see why I should waste anymore of my time, with you.
Post by Pan
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Chee Buu
2004-04-12 00:47:13 UTC
Permalink
U.S. and EU countries are suffering from their big bistake to habour
those unfaithful to their nations and citizens rather than so-called
"faith"
which encourages its followers to terrorize and kill infidles as so to
enjoy
sexual pleasure with 200 virgins at the so-called Islamic style heaven
while
innocent children and women are murdered by sucicide bombings.

Burma should not let them (those thugs in Quran bible) to kill our
innocent
Rakhine or Burmese people by next Hamas of Burma.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Rahul Chakma
2004-04-12 11:53:39 UTC
Permalink
"Chee Buu" <***@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<***@mygate.mailgate.org>...


I have deep respect for the Rakhine and Burmese people. Islam reached
India within one hundred years of its emergence in Saudi Arab. By 13th
century, Bengal was under the Muslim rule. Thanks to the Chakma
(Thet), Rakhine and Burmese people, who set a permanent brake on
Islam's eastward expansion for almost a millenium. Unable to move
eastward, Islam completely skipped the region and set foothold in
Malaysia. Islam was able to win converts from the culturally backward
Malays.
Pan
2004-04-13 10:39:58 UTC
Permalink
On 12 Apr 2004 04:53:39 -0700, ***@angelfire.com (Rahul Chakma)
wrote:

[snip]
Post by Rahul Chakma
Islam was able to win converts from the culturally backward
Malays.
Asshole idiot troll.

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Amanda
2004-04-15 14:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rahul Chakma
I have deep respect for the Rakhine and Burmese people. Islam reached
India within one hundred years of its emergence in Saudi Arab. By 13th
century, Bengal was under the Muslim rule.
Bengal was so far away from the center of Moguhl rule that the
oppression of the mass by the Hindu elites continued...

Beside, if Hindu upper catse were not so oppressive, most of those
people would never have become Muslims. In fact, if Hindu uppercaste
had not manipulated, Bhuddism would not have died out in India,
inclduing the region of what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Then, with no oppressive caste system in Bhuddism, no mass of South
Asia would have become Muslims.

People can see history in its context; do not assume that your
propaganda is working. People of Myanmar are so oppressed by the
dictatorhsip that they do not have access to the internet not are they
good in English to communicate here. A few who are responding here
live outside Myanmar and have access to all kinds of books and info.
You might as well save your propaganda crap for yourself.
Post by Rahul Chakma
Thanks to the Chakma
(Thet), Rakhine and Burmese people, who set a permanent brake on
Islam's eastward expansion for almost a millenium. Unable to move
eastward, Islam completely skipped the region and set foothold in
Malaysia. Islam was able to win converts from the culturally backward
Malays.
Why are you so filled with propaganda? Islam reached Malaysia via
trade. There was no military conquest. Every *historian* would agree
to that, you piece of propagandist. You must be a fanatic Hindu full
of hate.
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-15 17:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Rahul Chakma
I have deep respect for the Rakhine and Burmese people. Islam reached
India within one hundred years of its emergence in Saudi Arab. By 13th
century, Bengal was under the Muslim rule.
Bengal was so far away from the center of Moguhl rule that the
oppression of the mass by the Hindu elites continued...
Beside, if Hindu upper catse were not so oppressive, most of those
people would never have become Muslims. In fact, if Hindu uppercaste
had not manipulated, Bhuddism would not have died out in India,
inclduing the region of what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Then, with no oppressive caste system in Bhuddism, no mass of South
Asia would have become Muslims.
People can see history in its context; do not assume that your
propaganda is working. People of Myanmar are so oppressed by the
dictatorhsip that they do not have access to the internet not are they
good in English to communicate here. A few who are responding here
live outside Myanmar and have access to all kinds of books and info.
You might as well save your propaganda crap for yourself.
Bullshit
Why do you think it is propaganda when we say muslims should shut-up in
Myanmar
You don't belong there. Go away
Let the people of Myanmar live in peace


I coincidently whitnessed the "Kyaukse incident" last October and about a
week later we organised a party with some Buddhist friends in Myanmar and
other friends from Australia and the UK.
The final goal must be to kick out all muslims from Myanmar.
Post by Amanda
Post by Rahul Chakma
Thanks to the Chakma
(Thet), Rakhine and Burmese people, who set a permanent brake on
Islam's eastward expansion for almost a millenium. Unable to move
eastward, Islam completely skipped the region and set foothold in
Malaysia. Islam was able to win converts from the culturally backward
Malays.
Why are you so filled with propaganda? Islam reached Malaysia via
trade. There was no military conquest. Every *historian* would agree
to that, you piece of propagandist. You must be a fanatic Hindu full
of hate.
it's about time to clean Malaysia from that "medievial religion" (I am
quoting the Italian Prime Minister)
Amanda
2004-04-16 00:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Rahul Chakma
I have deep respect for the Rakhine and Burmese people. Islam reached
India within one hundred years of its emergence in Saudi Arab. By 13th
century, Bengal was under the Muslim rule.
Bengal was so far away from the center of Moguhl rule that the
oppression of the mass by the Hindu elites continued...
Beside, if Hindu upper catse were not so oppressive, most of those
people would never have become Muslims. In fact, if Hindu uppercaste
had not manipulated, Bhuddism would not have died out in India,
inclduing the region of what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Then, with no oppressive caste system in Bhuddism, no mass of South
Asia would have become Muslims.
People can see history in its context; do not assume that your
propaganda is working. People of Myanmar are so oppressed by the
dictatorhsip that they do not have access to the internet not are they
good in English to communicate here. A few who are responding here
live outside Myanmar and have access to all kinds of books and info.
You might as well save your propaganda crap for yourself.
Bullshit
Why do you think it is propaganda when we say muslims should shut-up in
Myanmar
You don't belong there. Go away
Let the people of Myanmar live in peace
I coincidently whitnessed the "Kyaukse incident"
You are full of it. The Muslims in Burma have lived with so much
fear, your crap is hilarious.
Post by Dieter Aaaa
last October and about a
week later we organised a party with some Buddhist friends in Myanmar and
other friends from Australia and the UK.
The final goal must be to kick out all muslims from Myanmar.
Still pretending a European?
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Rahul Chakma
Thanks to the Chakma
(Thet), Rakhine and Burmese people, who set a permanent brake on
Islam's eastward expansion for almost a millenium. Unable to move
eastward, Islam completely skipped the region and set foothold in
Malaysia. Islam was able to win converts from the culturally backward
Malays.
Why are you so filled with propaganda? Islam reached Malaysia via
trade. There was no military conquest. Every *historian* would agree
to that, you piece of propagandist. You must be a fanatic Hindu full
of hate.
it's about time to clean Malaysia from that "medievial religion"
(I am quoting the Italian Prime Minister)
So that makes it worth applying? You are entertaining.
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-16 01:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
I coincidently whitnessed the "Kyaukse incident"
You are full of it. The Muslims in Burma have lived with so much
fear, your crap is hilarious.
Why don't they move to Pakistan ?
And leave the people of Myanmar in peace ?
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
last October and about a
week later we organised a party with some Buddhist friends in Myanmar and
other friends from Australia and the UK.
The final goal must be to kick out all muslims from Myanmar.
Still pretending a European?
Yes, I do
Why shouldn't I
I'm even proud on it.

I have lots of Buddhist friends (and businesspartner) in Myanmar
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
it's about time to clean Malaysia from that "medievial religion"
(I am quoting the Italian Prime Minister)
So that makes it worth applying? You are entertaining.
It indicates how Europe is thinking about your dirty religion.
Amanda
2004-04-16 15:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
I coincidently whitnessed the "Kyaukse incident"
You are full of it. The Muslims in Burma have lived with so much
fear, your crap is hilarious.
Why don't they move to Pakistan ?
And leave the people of Myanmar in peace ?
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
last October and about a
week later we organised a party with some Buddhist friends in Myanmar
and
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
other friends from Australia and the UK.
The final goal must be to kick out all muslims from Myanmar.
Still pretending a European?
Yes, I do
Why shouldn't I
I'm even proud on it.
I have lots of Buddhist friends (and businesspartner) in Myanmar
So you are sucking the blood of the people of Myanmar by doing
business with the businesspartners who are affiliated with the
military thugs. Here in US, we the people protest our companies from
doing business with thugs..
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
it's about time to clean Malaysia from that "medievial religion"
(I am quoting the Italian Prime Minister)
So that makes it worth applying? You are entertaining.
It indicates how Europe is thinking about your dirty religion.
Not Europe, just you, pretentious Euro Trash.
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-16 19:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
I coincidently whitnessed the "Kyaukse incident"
You are full of it. The Muslims in Burma have lived with so much
fear, your crap is hilarious.
Why don't they move to Pakistan ?
And leave the people of Myanmar in peace ?
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
last October and about a
week later we organised a party with some Buddhist friends in Myanmar
and
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
other friends from Australia and the UK.
The final goal must be to kick out all muslims from Myanmar.
Still pretending a European?
Yes, I do
Why shouldn't I
I'm even proud on it.
I have lots of Buddhist friends (and businesspartner) in Myanmar
So you are sucking the blood of the people of Myanmar by doing
business with the businesspartners who are affiliated with the
military thugs.
not military
And I am not "sucking the blood of the people of Myanmar"
I am "sucking the blood of the" terrorist muslims
And most people in Europe are supporting me in that issue
Post by Amanda
Here in US, we the people protest our companies from
doing business with thugs..
your words...

I,
I dont bother about what you are doing in the US

I will keep supporting the peacefull people of Myanmar
and fighting against all muslims in that country.
Myanmar should be freed from these terrorists.

Europe will never support NLD:
Why should the west support the NLD if they, once they are in power, they
will sell the country to muslims ?
Or at least allow them to spread such an aggressive medievial religion...
If NLD would strive to real peace for the people of Myanmar/Burma, they
should ban the islam.
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
it's about time to clean Malaysia from that "medievial religion"
(I am quoting the Italian Prime Minister)
So that makes it worth applying? You are entertaining.
It indicates how Europe is thinking about your dirty religion.
Not Europe, just you, pretentious Euro Trash.
There is no need for abusive language,
did you run out of valid arguments ?
Amanda
2004-04-17 01:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rahul Chakma
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
I coincidently whitnessed the "Kyaukse incident"
You are full of it. The Muslims in Burma have lived with so much
fear, your crap is hilarious.
Why don't they move to Pakistan ?
And leave the people of Myanmar in peace ?
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
last October and about a
week later we organised a party with some Buddhist friends in
Myanmar
and
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
other friends from Australia and the UK.
The final goal must be to kick out all muslims from Myanmar.
Still pretending a European?
Yes, I do
Why shouldn't I
I'm even proud on it.
I have lots of Buddhist friends (and businesspartner) in Myanmar
So you are sucking the blood of the people of Myanmar by doing
business with the businesspartners who are affiliated with the
military thugs.
not military
And I am not "sucking the blood of the people of Myanmar"
I am "sucking the blood of the" terrorist muslims
And most people in Europe are supporting me in that issue
Post by Amanda
Here in US, we the people protest our companies from
doing business with thugs..
your words...
I,
I dont bother about what you are doing in the US
I will keep supporting the peacefull people of Myanmar
and fighting against all muslims in that country.
Myanmar should be freed from these terrorists.
Why should the west support the NLD if they, once they are in power, they
will sell the country to muslims ?
Or at least allow them to spread such an aggressive medievial religion...
If NLD would strive to real peace for the people of Myanmar/Burma, they
should ban the islam.
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
it's about time to clean Malaysia from that "medievial religion"
(I am quoting the Italian Prime Minister)
So that makes it worth applying? You are entertaining.
It indicates how Europe is thinking about your dirty religion.
Not Europe, just you, pretentious Euro Trash.
There is no need for abusive language,
did you run out of valid arguments ?
Valid arguments with you? You gotta be joking.
Chee Buu
2004-04-17 16:36:30 UTC
Permalink
If you visit this web site, you can't find the joke.

http://www.faithfreedom.org

May you laugh to your heart!

Happy Burmese Buddhist New Year.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Amanda
2004-04-18 08:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chee Buu
If you visit this web site, you can't find the joke.
http://www.faithfreedom.org
May you laugh to your heart!
Happy Burmese Buddhist New Year.
You are giving me the link of faithfreedom? Amusing.
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-18 21:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Chee Buu
If you visit this web site, you can't find the joke.
http://www.faithfreedom.org
May you laugh to your heart!
Happy Burmese Buddhist New Year.
You are giving me the link of faithfreedom? Amusing.
Here is another one:
http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/

The crimes of the muslims are almost uncountable.
Amanda
2004-04-19 03:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Chee Buu
If you visit this web site, you can't find the joke.
http://www.faithfreedom.org
May you laugh to your heart!
Happy Burmese Buddhist New Year.
You are giving me the link of faithfreedom? Amusing.
http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/
A site from anglefire? I too can build one at anglefire, you know?
Hahahahahahaha...................
Post by Dieter Aaaa
The crimes of the muslims are almost uncountable.
Pan
2004-04-13 10:39:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:47:13 +0000 (UTC), "Chee Buu"
Post by Chee Buu
U.S. and EU countries are suffering from their big bistake to habour
those unfaithful to their nations and citizens rather than so-called
"faith"
which encourages its followers to terrorize and kill infidles
[snip]

Shut up, you idiot pro-thug Muslim-hater. Do you seriously think
you'll be able to achieve popularity in the West for your barbarian
bunch of killers by trying to claim that the Muslim population of your
country constitute the real killers? Go back to sleep.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Chee Buu
2004-04-17 16:32:56 UTC
Permalink
This is respectable web sit for you.

http://www.faithfreedom.org

Happy Burmese New Year !
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Rahul Chakma
2004-04-12 11:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Do not fall for this baseless propanganda from hate mongers toward
Rohingya who happens to be Muslims.
There is nothing wrong hating Islam, a political religion that seeks
destruction of all other religions and non-Muslims. If I am hate
monger, so were Churchill and Roosevelt for waging ware against Hitler
and Nazism.
Post by Amanda
Rohingya is a group of people who have existed in Burma as a ethnic
group resulted from mixed racial group (of Turkish, Arab, and
sometimes Chinese, and other native trives, etc.) for 600 years.
A typical Muslim fantasy and fabrication. Lie is permissible in Islam,
as long as it's done to further Islamic cause. No wonder the Muslims
and their leaders are habitual liers.

Rohingya Muslims are Bengali Muslims from Chittagong of Bangladesh,
who were inititally brought by the British. They speak the Chittagong
dialect of Bengali. Though Chittagong dialect is incomprehensible to
the average Bengali, I can fluently speak the dialect, because it's a
mixture of my native language Chakma and Bengali.
Post by Amanda
They have distinctive culture and their religion is islam.
These Muslims have served loyally under the Arakan king (Bhuddist) who
had allied himeslef with Moghul Empire, rather than Burmese kingdon.
In fact, Arakan king and Burmses King were rival enemies. The Arakan
king not only borrowed the titles form Moghul rulers, but also
routinely appointed the Muslims for high positions in the court.
So did many Hindus who served under the Arakan king, but they never
claimed that Arakan was once a Hindu kingdom. A temporary alliance
with the Mughal king is irrelevant to the question of Rohingya
Muslims. Once Chittagong was part of Rakhine, the Mughals captured it
by force.
Post by Amanda
During British rule, this region was incorporated into "Burma" and
after Independence, the modern Burmese government had severly
discriminted them based on religion by accusing them as descedants of
Banglasdeshi and such...
If you want to talk about discrimination on the basis of religion,
visit any Muslim country. The Bangladesh army and Muslim fanatics
regularly destroy our Buddhist temples, terrorise our people. Our only
"crime", we refuse to become Muslims.
Post by Amanda
There is no Islamic propaganda from this group. It's just human rights
abuse which you can read from reports of Amnesty Int'l.
Again the Muslim countries are the most intolerant of other religions
and worst human rights violators against the religious minorities.
Post by Amanda
As far as Aung San Su Kyi is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised that
NDL doesn't care one way another about the future of these people.
After all, this group of people are highly intelligent and industrious
people. Given any opportunity, they would be at the top in everything
they do and the Burman know that and fear them.
No one has the right to grant any concession to terrorists and Muslim
infiltrators, deportation is the only logical policy of any
government. If cheating and stealing is considered intelligence and
industrious , no wonder the Muslim countries are poorest despite
having the vast oil reserves.
Post by Amanda
My suggestion to anyone interested in this issue, please do research
and not fall for propaganda.
Amanda
2004-04-14 18:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rahul Chakma
Post by Amanda
Do not fall for this baseless propanganda from hate mongers toward
Rohingya who happens to be Muslims.
There is nothing wrong hating Islam, a political religion that seeks
destruction of all other religions and non-Muslims. If I am hate
monger, so were Churchill and Roosevelt for waging ware against Hitler
and Nazism.
Here is some history lessons for you:


Here are a few paragraphs from "The Everything Understanding Islam
Book" by Chrisine Huda Dodge, a book I bought today to give to my
mother for Mother's Day along with Tuesdays with Morrie because I
could get them in big print:

About "Muslims are particularly harsh rulers", see Page 51:

Caliph Omar had embraced Islam after initially denying and
persecuting (referring to before hebecame a Muslim) those who joined
Muhammed in the early days. ....

During Omar's ten years in office, the borders of Islamic state
greatly expanded. Peace treaties were signed in Damascus and
Jerusalem, offering complete security of all houses of worhsip, and
protecting the lives and properties of Christians and Jewish citizens.


On page 57:

Muslim Spain

For eight centuries, the Muslim rulers ensured that Christians,
Jews, and Muslism lived together in peaceful coexistence. Scholarship
and the arts flourished.


On page 58:

Aftermath: The Inquistion

When the Christian rulers conquered Spain, they set about riding the
land of the multicultural and tolerant attitudes of the Muslim rulers.
The Catholic royalty dismissed the Muslims as heathen.....

As the message of Islam spread, Muslims defended themselves against
agression but did not use force to convert others to the faith.
Rather, the people with whom the Muslims came into contact were
inspired by their fairness and simplicity of their faith. Many
converted, and those that didn't were protected as minority
communities within the Muslims state.


About mentioning of Jews, see on page 11:

Mulsims are to speak to Jewish and Christian believers with words of
respectful advice, and try to find common ground. Islam teaches that
Muslims should say, "Oh People of the Book! Come to common terms
between us and you: That we worship none but God , that we associate
no partners with Him, that we do not erect, from among ourselves,
Lords and patrons other than God..." (Qu'ran 3:64).


On page 261:

The Muslim world did more than just translate ancient works and pass
them to Europe at the end of the dark Ages. Over the centuries, ....

Another great Muslim medical scholar is known in the west as
Avicenna. Abu Ali Ibn Sina was born in tentht-centuray Bukhara,
Persia (present-day Uzbekistan). Ibn Sina was a young prodigy, .....
Post by Rahul Chakma
Post by Amanda
Rohingya is a group of people who have existed in Burma as a ethnic
group resulted from mixed racial group (of Turkish, Arab, and
sometimes Chinese, and other native trives, etc.) for 600 years.
A typical Muslim fantasy and fabrication.
The reaserch was doen by outsiders, a British scholars. Beside,
Rohingyas do not speak the same language used in Bengladesh.
Post by Rahul Chakma
Lie is permissible in Islam,
as long as it's done to further Islamic cause. No wonder the Muslims
and their leaders are habitual liers.
Rohingya Muslims are Bengali Muslims from Chittagong of Bangladesh,
Find out the historical meaning of the word "Rohingya". Any Bengali
Muslims would proudly claim to be a Bengali, with their rich cultural
heritage.

Any two countries sharing borders would always shave some blodd mixing
especially with the Arakan region being coastal region. Having port
cities is the reason Arab and Turkish merchants ended up there in the
first place.
Post by Rahul Chakma
who were inititally brought by the British. They speak the Chittagong
dialect of Bengali. Though Chittagong dialect is incomprehensible to
the average Bengali, I can fluently speak the dialect, because it's a
mixture of my native language Chakma and Bengali.
It is your cliam that "Though Chittagong dialect is incomprehensible
to
the average Bengali". I have met a Hindu Bangladeshi girl from
Chittagong (at school) who met and married a Bangladeshi man (not from
Chittagong)in US. They have no problem in communicating with each
other using their native langauge. They routinely communicate to each
other in their langauge. '
Post by Rahul Chakma
Post by Amanda
They have distinctive culture and their religion is islam.
These Muslims have served loyally under the Arakan king (Bhuddist) who
had allied himeslef with Moghul Empire, rather than Burmese kingdon.
In fact, Arakan king and Burmses King were rival enemies. The Arakan
king not only borrowed the titles form Moghul rulers, but also
routinely appointed the Muslims for high positions in the court.
So did many Hindus who served under the Arakan king, but they never
claimed that Arakan was once a Hindu kingdom. A temporary alliance
with the Mughal king is irrelevant to the question of Rohingya
Muslims. Once Chittagong was part of Rakhine, the Mughals captured it
by force.
Post by Amanda
During British rule, this region was incorporated into "Burma" and
after Independence, the modern Burmese government had severly
discriminted them based on religion by accusing them as descedants of
Banglasdeshi and such...
If you want to talk about discrimination on the basis of religion,
visit any Muslim country. The Bangladesh army and Muslim fanatics
regularly destroy our Buddhist temples, terrorise our people.
So you justify the discrimination against Rohigya Muslims because of
the disciminations towrad non-Mulsims in Bnagladesh? How about the
discimintion towards Mulsims in what is now Bangladesh by tthe Hindu
elites before it became Bangladesh?
Post by Rahul Chakma
Our only
"crime", we refuse to become Muslims.
Hilarious! Under the miltary rule since 1962, with no civilian having
access to any weapon, and under sever human rights abuse, how could
these Muslims force you to becoeem Muslims. What's happening is the
otherway around.
Post by Rahul Chakma
Post by Amanda
There is no Islamic propaganda from this group. It's just human rights
abuse which you can read from reports of Amnesty Int'l.
Again the Muslim countries are the most intolerant of other religions
and worst human rights violators against the religious minorities.
What are you on? No one better skilled in human rights abuse than
Burmese Military regime.
Post by Rahul Chakma
Post by Amanda
As far as Aung San Su Kyi is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised that
NDL doesn't care one way another about the future of these people.
After all, this group of people are highly intelligent and industrious
people. Given any opportunity, they would be at the top in everything
they do and the Burman know that and fear them.
No one has the right to grant any concession to terrorists and Muslim
infiltrators, deportation is the only logical policy of any
government. If cheating and stealing is considered intelligence and
industrious , no wonder the Muslim countries are poorest despite
having the vast oil reserves.
Post by Amanda
My suggestion to anyone interested in this issue, please do research
and not fall for propaganda.
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-14 19:20:17 UTC
Permalink
"Amanda" <***@yahoo.com> wrote

[....]
Post by Rahul Chakma
There is nothing wrong hating Islam, a political religion that seeks
destruction of all other religions and non-Muslims. If I am hate
monger, so were Churchill and Roosevelt for waging ware against Hitler
and Nazism.
[......]

never seen so much lies in one single posting

You definately have beaten the record

Muslims will NEVER gain the respect of European people, neither fron the
peacefull Burmese people.
Go away with your hate
Amanda
2004-04-15 14:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dieter Aaaa
[....]
Post by Rahul Chakma
There is nothing wrong hating Islam, a political religion that seeks
destruction of all other religions and non-Muslims. If I am hate
monger, so were Churchill and Roosevelt for waging ware against Hitler
and Nazism.
[......]
never seen so much lies in one single posting
You definately have beaten the record
Muslims will NEVER gain the respect of European people,
Still pretending to be a European?
Post by Dieter Aaaa
neither fron the
peacefull Burmese people.
Speak for yourself. Burmese people are not ignorant like you despite
the oppressed press in the country.
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Go away with your hate
Look who's talking!!!!!!
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-15 17:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
[....]
Post by Rahul Chakma
There is nothing wrong hating Islam, a political religion that seeks
destruction of all other religions and non-Muslims. If I am hate
monger, so were Churchill and Roosevelt for waging ware against Hitler
and Nazism.
[......]
never seen so much lies in one single posting
You definately have beaten the record
Muslims will NEVER gain the respect of European people,
Still pretending to be a European?
absolutely
I am European, allways have been for > 2000 years
and I can prove that.

Why don't you believe me when I am stating that European people dislike
muslims ?
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Go away with your hate
Look who's talking!!!!!!
Why don't you leave the people in Myanmar live in peace ?
Go away there with your evil muslim religion
Go back to your medievial homeland.
Amanda
2004-04-16 00:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rahul Chakma
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
[....]
Post by Rahul Chakma
There is nothing wrong hating Islam, a political religion that seeks
destruction of all other religions and non-Muslims. If I am hate
monger, so were Churchill and Roosevelt for waging ware against
Hitler
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Rahul Chakma
and Nazism.
[......]
never seen so much lies in one single posting
You definately have beaten the record
Muslims will NEVER gain the respect of European people,
Still pretending to be a European?
absolutely
I am European, allways have been for > 2000 years
and I can prove that.
Why don't you believe me when I am stating that European people dislike
muslims ?
If you are European, you must be a Euro trash, an ignorant one.
For some reason I know that that you are not a European.

A European who bothered enough to learn the affairs of Burma would
definitely come across Amnesty Int'l Report on Huamn Rights Abuse in
Burma toward Muslims and Christains and other minority tribes and will
know that Muslims are so powerless to even fight back for the
injustice.
Post by Rahul Chakma
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Go away with your hate
Look who's talking!!!!!!
Why don't you leave the people in Myanmar live in peace ?
Why don't you get some education (real education)?
Post by Rahul Chakma
Go away there with your evil muslim religion
Go back to your medievial homeland.
Talk like a trash, smell like a trash.
Dieter Aaaa
2004-04-16 19:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
[......]
never seen so much lies in one single posting
You definately have beaten the record
Muslims will NEVER gain the respect of European people,
Still pretending to be a European?
absolutely
I am European, allways have been for > 2000 years
and I can prove that.
Why don't you believe me when I am stating that European people dislike
muslims ?
If you are European, you must be a Euro trash, an ignorant one.
For some reason I know that that you are not a European.
No arguments ?
Post by Amanda
A European who bothered enough to learn the affairs of Burma would
definitely come across Amnesty Int'l Report on Huamn Rights Abuse in
Burma toward Muslims and Christains and other minority tribes and will
know that Muslims are so powerless to even fight back for the
injustice.
I am a native European
and I will support all actions to destroy muslims in Myanmar
whatever the opumion or report of that organisations state.
Hope this is clear.
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Go away with your hate
Look who's talking!!!!!!
Why don't you leave the people in Myanmar live in peace ?
Why don't you get some education (real education)?
O, my dear...
You have no idea....
poor boy.
Post by Amanda
Post by Dieter Aaaa
Go away there with your evil muslim religion
Go back to your medievial homeland.
...
No arguments anymore ?
freedomlover
2004-04-21 01:37:57 UTC
Permalink
***@angelfire.com (Rahul Chakma) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...

<snip>
Post by Rahul Chakma
Rohingya Muslims are Bengali Muslims from Chittagong of Bangladesh,
Rohingyas are not Bengali. Rohingya may ended up mixing in blood
with bengalis due to common religion but Rohingya culture is different
from Bengali culture.
Post by Rahul Chakma
who were inititally brought by the British.
While a group called Rhingya emerged inside the region, Benglis were
*not* brought in by the British.

According to http://tinyurl.com/2bfwt ( I made the link tiny), a
community of Bengali Moslems in Arakan today is the product of
Arakan's toleration of Islam when it was an independent state seeking
commerce with India.


<snip>
Post by Rahul Chakma
Once Chittagong was part of Rakhine, the Mughals captured it
by force.
Chittagong, held by Arakan (Rakhine) since 1459 was taken back by the
Mughuls in late 1600s. See
http://www.guidetothailand.com/thailand-history/arakan.htm


<snip>
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
2004-04-21 13:49:15 UTC
Permalink
***@angelfire.com (Rahul Chakma) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...

...
Post by Rahul Chakma
There is nothing wrong hating Islam, a political religion that seeks
It is wrong when it is full of lies and deceit.
Post by Rahul Chakma
destruction of all other religions and non-Muslims. If I am hate
Certainly wrong when it is the only religion that openly recognise other
religions and even their religion's prophets. No other religion even come
close.
Post by Rahul Chakma
monger, so were Churchill and Roosevelt for waging ware against Hitler
and Nazism.
Then we should wage war against liars like yourself.
Post by Rahul Chakma
Post by Amanda
Rohingya is a group of people who have existed in Burma as a ethnic
group resulted from mixed racial group (of Turkish, Arab, and
sometimes Chinese, and other native trives, etc.) for 600 years.
A typical Muslim fantasy and fabrication. Lie is permissible in Islam,
as long as it's done to further Islamic cause. No wonder the Muslims
Another lie.
Post by Rahul Chakma
and their leaders are habitual liers.
Rohingya Muslims are Bengali Muslims from Chittagong of Bangladesh,
who were inititally brought by the British. They speak the Chittagong
dialect of Bengali. Though Chittagong dialect is incomprehensible to
the average Bengali, I can fluently speak the dialect, because it's a
mixture of my native language Chakma and Bengali.
So why don't they speak pure Bengali and in fact speak similarly like you.
Most probably you are the Bengali not the Rohingyas.
You provide proof of your lying and the truth of the Muslim claims.

...
Post by Rahul Chakma
If you want to talk about discrimination on the basis of religion,
visit any Muslim country. The Bangladesh army and Muslim fanatics
regularly destroy our Buddhist temples, terrorise our people. Our only
When faced with stubborn and idiotic liars like yourself no wonder.
Post by Rahul Chakma
"crime", we refuse to become Muslims.
Another proof of your lies. Despite all the alleged cruelties and terror,
you are still not Muslims, so much for your terror theory.


...
Post by Rahul Chakma
Again the Muslim countries are the most intolerant of other religions
and worst human rights violators against the religious minorities.
Just claims without any proof, with all proofs to the contrary, supplied
funnily by the complainant himself.
But the cruelty towards muslims is real and well documented and evidenced.
Rahul Chakma
2004-04-12 10:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dieter Aaaa
What's the opinion of
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD)
about this issue ?
As far as I am aware, the Rohingya Muslims tried to join the coalition
of opposition groups as a strategy to ligitimize themselves as
bonafied residents of Myanmar. Probably a Rakhine opposition group
alerted the NLD and denied membership of the coalition.

British government brought these Bengali Muslims from Chittagong. As
soon as Ne Win came to power, the government stripped these
infiltrators off citizenship. That was a very wise decision. If you
give an inch to the Muslims they will want a mile. Force is the only
language they understand.
freedomlover
2004-04-21 01:23:11 UTC
Permalink
***@angelfire.com (Rahul Chakma) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...

<snip>
Post by Rahul Chakma
British government brought these Bengali Muslims from Chittagong.
Myth are refuted with facts. See below

How Arakan ended up in Chittagong: (1) http://tinyurl.com/3evjm

Why Bengli descendants Muslims got to Arakan: (2) http://tinyurl.com/2bfwt

<<<< On the coast, between the Irrawaddy delta and the border of *modern*
Bangladesh, there was a kingdom named Arakan. Arakan is a wedge-shaped
land, 350 miles long and 90 miles across at its widest point; a
mountain range named the Arakan Yoma separates it from the rest of
Burma, making communications difficult. The Arakanese are closely
related to the Burmese--in fact they speak an archaic Burmese dialect
that is no longer used by the Burmese themselves--but the barriers of
nature have made them more interested in India and the sea than in
their brethren across the mountains. Most of them are Buddhists, but
Buddhism has never been the state religion the way it has been for the
Burmese. In fact, there is a community of Bengali Moslems in Arakan
today, the product of Arakan's toleration of Islam when it *was* an
independent state seeking commerce with India. >>>>>>>
Chee Buu
2004-04-11 19:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Good point and comprehensive report!.
Those kinds of people will never respect the the law, traditional and
culture
of the country they reside other thantheir so-called faith, Islam.
U.S. and E.U. are suffering from those people's terrorism ideology. Even
U.S. and European
citizens of Islam attack, destroy and kill innocent same citizens,
public properties and
facilities which are provided by the governments concerned because of
their "faith" and teaching
of "Quran". Some Muslims just condemn these killers' action, but never
have idea or strong message
to them because they agree with "Quran" in their hearts.

If SPDC or future government strictly control or drive away those
Muslims in or out of Burma,
Muslim countries world wide will call on "Jihad war" on Burma. Next
Palastine and Hamas style
attacking will be on innocent Burmese people in Burma, especialy Rakhine
state.

If we don't control those unfaithful people on Burma, our mother land,
now they will swallow our culture,
religion and traditional habits. We will be responsible for our
negligience.
Post by Rahul Chakma
"Kill them wherever you find them, and drive
them out from whence they drove you out, and
persecution is severer than slaughter, and do
not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until
they fight with you in it, but if they do fight
you, then slay them; such is the recompense of
the unbelievers." [Quran 2.191]
Bangladesh shares about 300 Km border with
Myanmar. Since 1947, the successive Pakistani
and Bangladeshi governments have been sponsoring
the Bengali Muslims to infiltrate into Rakhine
state of Myanmar to alter the demographic profile
if favour of the Muslims. So called Rohingya Muslims
are nothing but illegal infiltrators from Bangladesh,
they have no ancestral and historical root in Myanmar.
The infiltration is part of the Islamic expansionism.
In the Muslim viewpoint, the world is divided into
two regions- those areas controlled by Islam, called
Dar al-Islam (meaning the House of Islam) and those
called Dar al-Harb (the House of War). Islam commands
Muslims to infiltrate into the non-Muslim countries,
outbreed and fight non-Muslims until they exterminate
all non-Muslims, leaving Islam as the one and only
religion of the land (Sura 8:39). Muhammad is quoted
in the Hadith as saying, I have been ordered to fight
with the people until they say, none has the right to
be worshiped but Allah. (Hadith 4:196).
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Rahul Chakma
2004-04-12 11:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chee Buu
Good point and comprehensive report!.
Those kinds of people will never respect the the law, traditional and
culture
of the country they reside other thantheir so-called faith, Islam.
U.S. and E.U. are suffering from those people's terrorism ideology. Even
U.S. and European
citizens of Islam attack, destroy and kill innocent same citizens,
public properties and
facilities which are provided by the governments concerned because of
their "faith" and teaching
of "Quran".
Muhammad himself was a terrorist. He was a rapist, a sexual predator,
did not even spare minor girls like Ayesha. He was a coward who killed
many un-armed men, women and children. The true followers of Islam
will always be terrorists. Some time you may get a good human being
among Muslims, it's because he/she is farthest from Islam.
Post by Chee Buu
Some Muslims just condemn these killers' action, but never
have idea or strong message
to them because they agree with "Quran" in their hearts.
Typical Muslim mindset, they always sympathise with their
coreligionists, even with their terrorist brethren. They only try to
cheat the civilized world by crocodile tears.
Post by Chee Buu
If SPDC or future government strictly control or drive away those
Muslims in or out of Burma,
Muslim countries world wide will call on "Jihad war" on Burma. Next
Palastine and Hamas style
attacking will be on innocent Burmese people in Burma, especialy Rakhine
state.
Muslims are basically a coward group of people, just like their
prophet Mohammad. If you drive them away or slaughter their males and
forcibly marry their women to the Burmese and Rakhine men, they will
not mention a single word against Burma out of shame. Rather if you
are considerate with them, they will be more bombastic, just like in
the west.
Post by Chee Buu
If we don't control those unfaithful people on Burma, our mother land,
now they will swallow our culture,
religion and traditional habits. We will be responsible for our
negligience.
It's always wiser to destroy a danger in the budding stage, before it
gets too big.
Amanda
2004-04-21 02:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rahul Chakma
Post by Chee Buu
Good point and comprehensive report!.
Those kinds of people will never respect the the law, traditional and
culture
of the country they reside other thantheir so-called faith, Islam.
U.S. and E.U. are suffering from those people's terrorism ideology. Even
U.S. and European
citizens of Islam attack, destroy and kill innocent same citizens,
public properties and
facilities which are provided by the governments concerned because of
their "faith" and teaching
of "Quran".
Muhammad himself was a terrorist. He was a rapist, a sexual predator,
did not even spare minor girls like Ayesha. He was a coward who killed
many un-armed men, women and children. The true followers of Islam
will always be terrorists. Some time you may get a good human being
among Muslims, it's because he/she is farthest from Islam.
This is what a Hindu scholar said about Muhhammad:

K. S. Ramakrishna Rao in 'Mohammed: The Prophet of Islam,' 1989
(http://www.themodernreligion.com/quotes_muhammad.htm#rao)

My problem to write this monograph is easier, because we are not
generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time
need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The
theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any
quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that "there is no
compulsion in religion" is well known.



Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
(http://www.themodernreligion.com/quotes_muhammad.htm#gandhi)

I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an
undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became
more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place
for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid
simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous
regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers,
his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in
his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before
them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume
(of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to
read of that great life.



Annie Besant in 'The Life and Teachings of Mohammad,' Madras, 1932.
(http://www.themodernreligion.com/quotes_muhammad.htm#besant)

It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the
great Prophet of Arabia, who knew how he taught and how he lived, to
feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great
messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall
say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel,
whenever I reread them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of
reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.


W. Montgomery Watt in 'Muhammad at Mecca,' Oxford, 1953.
(http://www.themodernreligion.com/quotes_muhammad.htm#watt)
His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral
character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a
leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his
fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more
problems that it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of
history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.... Thus, not
merely must we credit Muhammad with essential honesty and integrity of
purpose, if we are to understand him at all; if we are to correct the
errors we have inherited from the past, we must not forget the
conclusive proof is a much stricter requirement than a show of
plausibility, and in a matter such as this only to be attained with
difficulty.




James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,' Reader's
Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70.
(http://www.themodernreligion.com/quotes_muhammad.htm#michener)


"No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has
widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the
sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur'an is
explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience."
"Muhammad, the inspired man who founded Islam, was born about A.D. 570
into an Arabian tribe that worshiped idols. Orphaned at birth, he was
always particularly solicitous of the poor and needy, the widow and
the orphan, the slave and the downtrodden. At twenty he was already a
successful businessman, and soon became director of camel caravans for
a wealthy widow. When he reached twenty-five his employer recognizing
his merit, proposed marriage. Even though she was fifteen years older,
he married her and as long as she lived remained a devoted husband."

"Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of
serving as the transmitter of God's word sensing his own inadequacy.
But the Angel commanded ‘Read'. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable
to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which
would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: "There is one
God"."

"In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son
Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred and rumors of God 's personal
condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have
announced, ‘An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to
attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being'."

"At Muhammad's own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man
who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria
with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If there are
any among you who worshiped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you
Worshiped, He lives for ever'."
Rahul Chakma
2004-04-21 13:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Mohammad was a psychologically unstable person, who used to hear
voices ("angel") just like some psychologically ill people hear
voices.

Pre-Islamic Arabs used to worship hundreds of gods, one of them was
moon god Illah. For some reason Mohammad adopted moon god Illah
(Allah) as the sole god. Quran is nothing but Mohammad's own
imagination of the things and recorded by his paid scribes. Mohammad
himself was a selfish, greedy, cruel, sexual predator and evil man.
Quran is the reflection of his personal thoughts, Quran encourages
violence against anyone who does not believe in him (non-Muslim), it
promises sex in paradise just like him who dreamt of sex even in
paradise. Nevertheless Islam did spread rapidly both by sword and over
breeding. However it reached a dead end once it lost technological
superiority to the west.
Amanda
2004-04-21 17:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rahul Chakma
Mohammad was a psychologically unstable person, who used to hear
voices ("angel") just like some psychologically ill people hear
voices.
Pre-Islamic Arabs used to worship hundreds of gods, one of them was
moon god Illah. For some reason Mohammad adopted moon god Illah
(Allah) as the sole god.
He adopted the use of term "Allah" who was the supreme God in
paganism. Why wouldn't he adopt that? It's his language. The fact is
that the new concept of "Allah" was clearly "Omnipotent, Omnipresent,
Creator God". There was no doubt about that.
Post by Rahul Chakma
Quran is nothing but Mohammad's own
imagination of the things and recorded by his paid scribes.
No one is asking you to believe as ultimate truth. I don't practise
any religion but I don't see whay I have to attack it the way you do.
Post by Rahul Chakma
Mohammad
himself was a selfish, greedy, cruel, sexual predator and evil man.
There are tons of non-Muslim historains writing about him and you are
not a historian by any standard.
Post by Rahul Chakma
Quran is the reflection of his personal thoughts,
Quran encourages
violence against anyone who does not believe in him (non-Muslim), it
promises sex in paradise just like him who dreamt of sex even in
paradise. Nevertheless Islam did spread rapidly both by sword and over
breeding.
Peopple can find out for themsleves.
Post by Rahul Chakma
However it reached a dead end once it lost technological
superiority to the west.
It reached dead end? Where do you live? in Mars? It is the fastest
growing religon in the world.
Rahul Chakma
2004-04-22 10:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amanda
He adopted the use of term "Allah" who was the supreme God in
paganism. Why wouldn't he adopt that? It's his language. The fact is
that the new concept of "Allah" was clearly "Omnipotent, Omnipresent,
Creator God". There was no doubt about that.
Mohammad adopted the concept of omnipotent, omniscent Allah to give
divinity to his actions, a lot of his actions were nothing but
criminal. If Allah is the omnipotent creator, why did Allah incites
hatred against the non-Muslims? Are the non-Muslims creation of
different god? The fact is Mohammad created the concept of Allah, not
other way around, to justify his evil acts like murder, rape, robbery
etc.
Post by Amanda
No one is asking you to believe as ultimate truth. I don't practise
any religion but I don't see whay I have to attack it the way you do.
It is nothing my business to criticize what others believe as long as
that belief does not harm me. But Islam incites hatred and violence
against non-Muslims. I have the right to counter attack Islam. We just
have to look at everday news to feel the omnipresence of Islamic
Terrorism and that's only tip of the iceberg. The religious
persecution against minorities that goes on in every Islamic country
hardly makes news.
Post by Amanda
There are tons of non-Muslim historains writing about him and you are
not a historian by any standard.
I may not be a historian, that does not mean that I am ignorant of
Islamic history.
Post by Amanda
It reached dead end? Where do you live? in Mars? It is the fastest
growing religon in the world.
Islam is growing by over breeding, rather than by conversion. A
religion which denies basic rights to women is a fertile environment
for high birth rate. Despite large number the Muslim world lacks
strength in every field. For example 1 billion Muslims can not defeat
10 million jews, Muslims are the poorest despite having vast oil
reserve, Muslims are the sickest, Muslim nations always top among the
most corrupt nations (transperancy international), needless to say
Muslims have the absolute monopoly on religious motivated terrorism.
Amanda
2004-04-22 16:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Rahul,

Keep your head in your ass. It's your human rights.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...