Man from mostly peaceful religion decapitates teacher over Muhammad cartoons

Started by S_W_LeGenD16 pages

Originally posted by abhilegend
Yes, he did. Changing his mind on what? There wasn't a single hindu temple in his capital during his reign.

Also history is distorted by Marxists.


Is this a revisionist tale or something? I do not deny the fact that some of the Hindu Temples were destroyed by the ruling elite at different points in time (wrong calls) but these unfortunate events materialized for different reasons. Entire settlements have ended up torched in war(s) throughout human history let alone places of worship in the mix.

Emperor Akbar's take on religions was different and unique from that of others.

Religion

Akbar was religiously curious. He regularly participated in the festivals of other faiths, and in 1575 in Fatehpur Sikri—a walled city that Akbar had designed in the Persian style—he built a temple (ibadat-khana) where he frequently hosted scholars from other religions, including Hindus, Zoroastrians, Christians, yogis, and Muslims of other sects. He allowed the Jesuits to construct a church at Agra and discouraged the slaughter of cattle out of respect for Hindu custom. Not everyone appreciated these forays into multiculturalism, however, and many called him a heretic.

In 1579, a mazhar, or declaration, was issued that granted Akbar the authority to interpret religious law, superseding the authority of the mullahs. This became known as the “Infallibility Decree,” and it furthered Akbar’s ability to create an interreligious and multicultural state. In 1582 he established a new cult, the Din-i-Ilahi (“divine faith”), which combined elements of many religions, including Islam, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. The faith centered around Akbar as a prophet or spiritual leader, but it did not procure many converts and died with Akbar.

LINK: https://www.biography.com/political-figure/akbar-the-great

He did not follow even Islam to the letter - violated some of its teachings as well.

He wanted to reshape the Mughal Empire as per his mindset.

Emperor Akbar's Hindu-appeasement is well-documented:

The attitudes of Muslim rulers toward the native Hindu (and Sikh and Jain) populations ranged from the almost total tolerance of the Mughal Emperor Akbar, who built and patronized temples (for example, a temple to the important Hindu god Krishna at Vrindavan) to the extreme intolerance of his great-grandson Aurangzeb (who demolished parts of the same temple in Vrindavan). Attitudes toward conversion and tolerance were more liberal among Muslim political rulers and less so among clerics. One of the most famous and prominent religious scholars of the Mughal Empire, Ahmed Sirhindi, deplored the tolerant policies of Akbar and wrote regarding Hindus and Sikhs: “With whatever intention and purpose they are killed, the humiliation of infidels is for the Muslims life itself.”

Contrary to the belief of many, the conversion, en masse, of Hindus to Islam by force was relatively uncommon in the subcontinent due to the vast numerical superiority of Hindus and the persistence of various Hindu principalities scattered throughout the subcontinent. For the most part, the population was left alone, but at times, defeated rulers were offered the choice of conversion or death; for example Bukka Raya I, the founder of Vijayanagara, converted to Islam for a while before escaping from Delhi and reverting to Hinduism.

LINK: https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/indias-hindu-right-is-correct-about-one-thing-indias-muslim-rulers-did-destroy-hindu-temples/

Exactly what I have been trying to convey to you.

Originally posted by Artol
As far as I understand the term “islamist” is not really contentious, it basically means fundamentalist radical Islam, what some people think is counter productive is the term “Islamic terrorism”. The idea is to not paint with too broad a brush and feed anti-western sentiment among Muslims or feed anti-muslim sentiment in the West.

Obama sure as hell didn't refer to attacks like this as "islamist terrorist attacks" tho.

In fact it comes off like when discussing these things democrats would prefer to avoid any word that contains "islam". Unless that word is "islamaphobe" of course.

I also feel like some progressives have sort of learned a lesson from the past. I have not seen an immediate attempt to pivot and start crying about backlash to the muslim community in reaction to this terrorist attack. Wise choice there too 👆

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
👆
This is hilarious XD The same logic applies to Jesus!

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Wrong. He was wrongly imprisoned over the stupid structuring laws.

He was not imprisoned for trying to force Christianity onto people lol.

He claimed his videos were a science, then a ministry, to avoid paying tax. He was in prison for 10 years for that simple contradiction because the law is "you can't make profit from religion through inter-state sale of your product.

He's a fraud and always have been.

...and he left a floater in the toilet.

Still though we did have this headline from the NYT:

"French police shoot and kill man after a fatal knife attack on the street”

Which uhhh, is technically correct but perhaps they should not have phrased it as if to suggest the main focus should be that the cops shot a dude.

I can't even imagine why anyone would see the NYT as anything but a friend tho.

Originally posted by Surtur
Still though we did have this headline from the NYT:

"French police shoot and kill man after a fatal knife attack on the street”

Which uhhh, is technically correct but perhaps they should not have phrased it as if to suggest the main focus should be that the cops shot a dude.

I can't even imagine why anyone would see the NYT as anything but a friend tho.

I was more focused on the "fatal knife attack"

Anyone in the west that defends Islam this hard, are useless scum to me.

The fact that in the West, we have the freedom to talk about anything, and a teacher was murdered because he dare to challenge Islam, and we have people here defending this, proves you people are the lowest of the low.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I was more focused on the "fatal knife attack"

Well most people were not which is why NYT very bravely changed the headline.

A better more fitting headline would be "Teacher murdered by terrorist over Muhammad cartoons, suspect killed by police".

Ridiculous. This was obviously a nut Islamic fundamentalist who doesn't like cartoons.

Which part of the hadith does it say that images depicting Mo are wrong? Cos if there is, then we should monitor people who believe that shit.

If eThneo is reading this, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them”: second of the Ten Commandments.

Laid in stone in f*cking Alabama.

Originally posted by Surtur
Obama sure as hell didn't refer to attacks like this as "islamist terrorist attacks" tho.

In fact it comes off like when discussing these things democrats would prefer to avoid any word that contains "islam". Unless that word is "islamaphobe" of course.

Yes, Obama seldolmy used that term, not because he wasn't opposed to islamist terrorism though, I think that would be an unfair characterization.

Originally posted by Blakemore
This is hilarious XD The same logic applies to Jesus!

He claimed his videos were a science, then a ministry, to avoid paying tax. He was in prison for 10 years for that simple contradiction because the law is "you can't make profit from religion through inter-state sale of your product.

He's a fraud and always have been.

...and he left a floater in the toilet.

That is all a lie. I suggest you check out KentHovindisInnocent.com.

I understand you hate him because he on a daily basis destroys the pseudo-science of evolutionism and the "billions of years" lie but you have been brainwashed.

Originally posted by SquallX
Anyone in the west that defends Islam this hard, are useless scum to me.

The fact that in the West, we have the freedom to talk about anything, and a teacher was murdered because he dare to challenge Islam, and we have people here defending this, proves you people are the lowest of the low.

Yeah... it's really disgusting, I agree.

Originally posted by Surtur
I also feel like some progressives have sort of learned a lesson from the past. I have not seen an immediate attempt to pivot and start crying about backlash to the muslim community in reaction to this terrorist attack. Wise choice there too 👆

Yeah, that's another strategic question, how to best protect the Muslim minority in Western countries, I do think that immediately messaging about the Muslim communities might actually be counterproductive, as it enrages anti-Muslim extremists. But of course it is important to protect all groups in a country, I think we can all agree on that.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
That is all a lie. I suggest you check out KentHovindisInnocent.com.

I understand you hate him because he on a daily basis destroys the pseudo-science of evolutionism and the "billions of years" lie but you have been brainwashed.

Yeah, and you should google "did Kent Hovind leave a floater in the toilet?"

Originally posted by Artol
As far as I understand the term “islamist” is not really contentious, it basically means fundamentalist radical Islam, what some people think is counter productive is the term “Islamic terrorism”. The idea is to not paint with too broad a brush and feed anti-western sentiment among Muslims or feed anti-muslim sentiment in the West.
👆

Blake, you are a friggin' idiot. You are an anti-Christian bigot. So what if there is a stone slab of the ten commandments at a courthouse in Alabama? It's not hurting anyone and our standards of right and wrong are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

There is no basis for an atheist to believe in standards of right and wrong. According to evolution, the strong should rule the weak and it is for the greater good if the weak die off so the population as a whole will "evolve".

What do you care if there is a ten commandments statue in Alabama? You don't live there.

You need to get that anti Christian chip off your shoulder before someone knocks it off. Looks like you insist on derailing this thread with your anti Christian bigoted talk.

You are just a sad piece of shit who can't stand it that people actually have the gall to believe in a higher power. Get over yourself.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Yeah, and you should google "did Kent Hovind leave a floater in the toilet?"

Are you just gonna troll now?

Originally posted by Blakemore
Yeah, and you should google "did Kent Hovind leave a floater in the toilet?"

Lulz, I have it on DVD😛 Respekt, booyashaka.

Religion creates some funky ppl and beliefs.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Blake, you are a friggin' idiot. You are an anti-Christian bigot. So what if there is a stone slab of the ten commandments at a courthouse in Alabama? It's not hurting anyone and our standards of right and wrong are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

There is no basis for an atheist to believe in standards of right and wrong. According to evolution, the strong should rule the weak and it is for the greater good if the weak die off so the population as a whole will "evolve".

What do you care if there is a ten commandments statue in Alabama? You don't live there.

You need to get that anti Christian chip off your shoulder before someone knocks it off. Looks like you insist on derailing this thread with your anti Christian bigoted talk.

You are just a sad piece of shit who can't stand it that people actually have the gall to believe in a higher power. Get over yourself.

It clearly states "thou shalt not worship graven images" this teacher made a cartoon of Muhammed, this is a graven image.

If you want to see a hypocrite, look in a mirror.