|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 12, 2008 11:07:57 GMT 3
It's a proven fact that Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Shamanists lived in relative harmony on the steppes. It even took a shamanist leader (Chingghis Khaan) to enforce the greatest religious tolerance ever in the world (which isn't the case even today)
I know this is a real sensitive issue. However, let's say for example Christianity - Nestorians did not seem to cause any disturbance or anger any non-Christian believers, in fact, Nestorians didn't even lose their culture or their ways - the Nestorian Naimans were still great warriors.
However, it seems in the modern era, Christianity has been very, very guilty of cultural genocide. Religious tolerance was never there, all justified by their beliefs "All non-believers will go to hell, it is a sin to worship any other God but God" etc. Ask any Christian about this fact.
I don't see how we could have established such a tolerant state with such impractical religions. My only answer seems to be that perhaps we allowed religious tolerance - but made sure religious trouble-makers were also dealt with - those who disturb the harmony. If this is so, which I believe it is...
Then I see nothing wrong with eviction of those trouble-making foreign evangelists in modern times, an example where it is causing many problems are the Mormon and South Korean missionaries in Mongolia. The way they do it, it's almost like subtle colonisation. They don't even know the history of our people especially in regards to non-churchie Christian Altaics.
It's like taking "religious tolerance", then spitting it at our face. Do you agree that unless the religionists are our local branches of Altaic Islamics, Altaic Buddhists or Altaic Christians - that we should really watch our borders?
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 13, 2008 23:17:31 GMT 3
Religious missionarism is a real problem for our cultures indeed. Especially Protestan Christianity and Orthodox (usually Sunni) Islam. I have no problems with these religions, as long as they don't try to replace our cultures, which is actually they usually do.
When Turkic and Mongolic peoples converted to monotheist Semitic religions, Manikhaeism or Buddhism, they did not give away their traditions and in fact, embraced most of them into their new believes. However, these new Sunni Muslim and Prostant Christian missionaries operating inside our societies are trying to wipe out our cultures, which is something that should be avoided at all cost (just look at what happened in India several months ago).
|
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 14, 2008 1:07:03 GMT 3
Religious missionarism is a real problem for our cultures indeed. every form of missionary work should be treated as an agressive act against a people or nation, they are no different from terrorists. |
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Jun 14, 2008 1:10:48 GMT 3
Religious missionarism is a real problem for our cultures indeed. every form of missionary work should be treated as an agressive act against a people or nation, they are no different from terrorists. Here christians arrived with swords and they said "convert or die!". Now they have words instead of swords, but both can really make a bad things... |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 14, 2008 13:57:28 GMT 3
I agree to all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 14, 2008 15:49:13 GMT 3
Agreed, I thought I was going to get flamed for this post, but I'm comforted that others see this point of view. The one habit they also tend to do is target the poor and vulnerable, it's absolutely sick and we should all have a new law to go hand in hand with religious tolerance.
The law should be: You are free to practice any religion, our nation is tolerant to all faiths. However, if any preacher shows intolerance, promote ethnocentrism, condemn others for their culture or religious beliefs, evangelise with the religious 'superiority' notion, threatening and d**ning people who do not give offerings using 'fear of the unknown', ask for money to promote your institution from vulnerable people, preach 'd**ning' speeches such as "All who do not believe are going to hell" -> then despite the laws of religious tolerance, you will be considered in full breach of this agreement and there will be no tolerance for your subtle terrorism of our state.
What you guys think? Heh
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 15, 2008 21:08:37 GMT 3
Nice idea indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mongol194 on Oct 6, 2008 15:42:41 GMT 3
Hey ihsan!  It's not sunni muslims or shia muslims who forcefully convert people! Nor do they pusue aggressive missionary work. The thing is it's fundamentalist wahabis not sunni's. OK some say wahabis are sunnis. Thats not true wahabis are extremists who have nothing to do with sunnis. Sunni stands for Ahle sunnat wal Jammat. I:e the followers of the sunnat-way of the phrophet muhammad. They live and let live......very much like the sufi's. Wahabis want to impose islamic doctrine of caliph's hence why many want to establish caliphates.  While many of you may not know this more than 2thirds of the worlds muslim population are sunni. To be a sunni you don't HAVE to keep a beard or pray five times etc thats all extra you just have to believe in the oneness of GOD and love Muahammed. I happen to be both sunni and shia! This is becuase i follow the sunni path but i also believe in Ali as Muhammads religious successor. Sorry to go on like this. But imam hussain wasn't killed by sunni's it was wahabi's! However the genocide that followed forced my tribal ancestors to flee eastwards and out of central asia to aviod being accused of supporting rebels (Shia). All shia means is supporters of Ali. People have twisted the links between sunni and shia until now they seem to be two different groups. one day i pray they unite as well as all other tolerant god fearing people! Missionaries are pests especially when they get thier facts wrong! Muslims are closer to jews and christians than they know or believe same for many other religons. If only they looked at simmilarities not differences!  |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Oct 6, 2008 16:14:32 GMT 3
Hey ihsan! It's not sunni muslims or shia muslims who forcefully convert people! Nor do they pusue aggressive missionary work. The thing is it's fundamentalist wahabis not sunni's. OK some say wahabis are sunnis. Thats not true wahabis are extremists who have nothing to do with sunnis. Sunni stands for Ahle sunnat wal Jammat. I:e the followers of the sunnat-way of the phrophet muhammad. They live and let live......very much like the sufi's. Wahabis want to impose islamic doctrine of caliph's hence why many want to establish caliphates. Yeah yeah, but you know, there were no Wahhâbîs while the Muslim Arabs wiped out Buddhism and Manikhaeism from Turkistan during the 7th-8th centuries |
|
|
|
Post by mongol194 on Oct 6, 2008 16:58:45 GMT 3
Actually bro wahabis are older than we think ibn taymiyah was the first wahabi and he was around just after Caliph Ali. Abdul wahab was just a modern schollar who is recognised as having made wahabism!
Charles Darwin supposedly discoverd evolution theory, he didn't he was the first to write about it. Other scientists like his grandfather and Francis Lamark came up with the theory years before darwin, they just didn't write about it because it was a taboo subject.
As for all the Islamic conquests after Ali made by the ummayads they were all wahabi so i do believe their acts were illegal and wrong. The most famous wahabi ruler was hajjaj bin yusaf he even stuffed his best general who was a fellow muslim!
The prophet muhammad was not a violent person nor any of the four "rightfully guided caliphs" but as all muslim schollars (except wahabis!) will tell you all the following caliphs were tyrants. Its why the sufi saints of baghdad were able to convert the mongols becuase the mongols freed them of tyranicall rulers and allowed them to preach again. The four imams of Islam were all tortured to death by thier own rulers. OK maybe calling thier tormentors wahabi is an insult.....demons would be more correct ;D
It's why i strongly oppose saudi backed plans for an Islamic caliphate. Not becuase i'm a communist but becuase of the attrocities commited by so called muslim rulers. The conqyuests of many steppe people were not religios wars but genocides commited in the name of Islam. Religous based revolts and wars against hostile invaders though i don't mind religous or not no one has right to master anyone we are all free people.
Sorry to go on like that bro just givin my view
|
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Oct 6, 2008 17:28:18 GMT 3
wahabi's are douchebags
the most beautifull form of Islam is Sufi Islam
why?
Because it doesn't realy have a definition
it's more about enlightenment & a relationship with the creator than mindeless mass prayers and crazy Imams
|
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Oct 6, 2008 23:18:34 GMT 3
Suufis indeed are the most nice abrahamists.  |
|
|
|
Post by ALTAR on Oct 7, 2008 0:03:49 GMT 3
I totally agree with Subutai, Temujin, Verinen Paroni and Ihsan.
Religion must be stayed in the private life of people. Secularism is the best choice and solution for all people. This cause to prevent the religion wars and missionary activities.
And the last thing I want to add is being coreligionist doesnot mean that the people cannot fight in each other. For instance you can look at the situation in Iraq currently. All of them are nearly Muslim. However they have been still killing each other day by day.
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Oct 7, 2008 1:24:51 GMT 3
Actually bro wahabis are older than we think ibn taymiyah was the first wahabi and he was around just after Caliph Ali. Abdul wahab was just a modern schollar who is recognised as having made wahabism! Charles Darwin supposedly discoverd evolution theory, he didn't he was the first to write about it. Other scientists like his grandfather and Francis Lamark came up with the theory years before darwin, they just didn't write about it because it was a taboo subject. As for all the Islamic conquests after Ali made by the ummayads they were all wahabi so i do believe their acts were illegal and wrong. The most famous wahabi ruler was hajjaj bin yusaf he even stuffed his best general who was a fellow muslim! The prophet muhammad was not a violent person nor any of the four "rightfully guided caliphs" but as all muslim schollars (except wahabis!) will tell you all the following caliphs were tyrants. Its why the sufi saints of baghdad were able to convert the mongols becuase the mongols freed them of tyranicall rulers and allowed them to preach again. The four imams of Islam were all tortured to death by thier own rulers. OK maybe calling thier tormentors wahabi is an insult.....demons would be more correct ;D It's why i strongly oppose saudi backed plans for an Islamic caliphate. Not becuase i'm a communist but becuase of the attrocities commited by so called muslim rulers. The conqyuests of many steppe people were not religios wars but genocides commited in the name of Islam. Religous based revolts and wars against hostile invaders though i don't mind religous or not no one has right to master anyone we are all free people. Sorry to go on like that bro just givin my view Ok, I see your point Hmm but than, I got another point. Islam is, at least as far as I read in the Qurân, actually tolerant only to the "Ahl al-Kitâb أهل الكتاب (People of the Book)", which includes only the Christians and the Jews. And they are allowed to keep their religions only if they accept to be ruled by Muslims and if they pay the Jizya جزْية tax. Anywhere outside Muslim rule is considered Dâr al-Ḥarb دار الحرب (War Zone) while the areas ruled by the Muslims is called Dâr al-Islâm دار الإسلام (Zone of Peace, but actually meaning Zone of Submission - peaceful as long as you obey it's rules - very similar to the Old Turkic concept of Il). Belief systems and religions out of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are considered to be necessary to be destroyed completely from the surface of the World - these include Paganic religions (I don't like using the term "pagan" actually, I prefer using terms like "Turko-Mongol Religion", "Ancient Greek Religion", "Roman Religion", etc), animism-shamanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, and actually everything. If you do not accept that there is only one God, and if you do not accept that Muḥammad محمّد is his last Messenger, this means you have to be killed. All the sacred places of these cults and religions, if they have, should be destroyed. This is what the Qurân says, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Oct 7, 2008 7:59:08 GMT 3
I totally agree with Subutai, Temujin, Verinen Paroni and Ihsan. Religion must be stayed in the private life of people. Secularism is the best choice and solution for all people. This cause to prevent the religion wars and missionary activities. And the last thing I want to add is being coreligionist doesnot mean that the people cannot fight in each other. For instance you can look at the situation in Iraq currently. All of them are nearly Muslim. However they have been still killing each other day by day. Well, sunnis and shiias are like protestants and catholics.  |
|
