Sobering thoughts on the Pakistani convert case

[c7ityi_]

In an ideal world, there would be no religion.

your ideal world, but there are other idiots who want religion.

 

[(Q)]

your ideal world, but there are other idiots who want religion.

Unfortunately, Fantasyland is not open for business, and no other worlds that we have access to live on, exist either.

And as people get educated, present company excluded, religion will lose its grip on society and get shelved along with all the other myths, mankind will come together as one and the ideal world will exist.

Hard core religious fanatics will do everything in their power to stop such a progression and keep mankind divided, but will ultimately fail as the process of evolution precludes their want to believe in fantasies.

 

[Gordon]

Diamond Hearts states,

Christians would be less persecuted if they didnt use deception and necessities like food, water, and shelter to convert scores of people to their religion. This practice, especially from American evangelists, angers many people of the world.

It is very gratifying to note that the worst Christian evangelists can be accused of is 'providing food, water and shelter 'or in other words showing the real love of God in a practical way. Is it surprising that people want voluntarily to convert to a religion that supports this, rather than be forced to submit to one that does not? Showing the practical outpouring of love to people in need is exactly what Christianity is about (as in the Parable of the Good Samaritan - which interestingly has no parallel in Islam). In case the point of the parable is not know, the salient point is that the man was helped by someone who was hated by the people of the hurt man (Jews hated Samaritans at this time).

Diamond Hearts knows very well that for anyone to convert to Christainity in these circumstances would be extremely difficult and dangerous so the people concerned would need to want to do so of their own free will and very strongly at that.

Except with a very warped view of the world, I cannot understand how this can be called 'deception'.

kind regards to all,


Gordon.

 

[GeoffP]

No!! we can't do that. They got the freaking oil. Lets just nuke them and take their fucking oil. No! but we can't do that, wouldn't be prudent, wouldn't be civilized. But how long do you think these genocidalIslamophobes would wate to throw the freaking nuke at us? That's the issue! they wouldn't hesitate one iota, to nuke the west if they had the freaking means! And unfortunately it may come to that, if these assholes never change thier ways!.

Well, I know where you're coming from; it makes one very angry. I don't really think you'd want to nuke anyone, though, and I wouldn't either. If islam could be reformed somehow, that might be preferable - but I agree pretty strongly that the real problem is the teaching itself.

For example, look at Diamond: he has no confusion at all about the meaning of the religion, no difficulty whatever with the concept of killing apostates and homosexuals, no problem with the subordination of women to men (and note also the git that wrote in to support him!). Diamond would appear to be a pretty average citizen of Pakistan, or at least has given no statement to say that he is less or more islamic than most. Nor, moreover, has a single one - not one - of the muslims on this site written in to criticize the above views. Couple this with how we know religious minorities are treated in islamic countries (which, ironically, the defense that they are "not islamic" is sometimes given; "more islamic" axiomatically appearing to be even more oppressive as per DH's statements on evangelisation in the ummah) and the convert they almost killed in Afghanistan (and note again the support for that) and it presents a very unsettling picture of religious supremacismm and the extent of it in the ummah. DH himself indicates that his views are of the majority in Pakistan, and other islamic nations.

So where is this peaceful, tolerant, equal-opportunity majority? Can't they find a keyboard?

Geoff

 

[Bells]

Really? How do we know, when DH and his ilk want to run around, hacking the heads off of people who convert from islam, let alone try to change the religio-political system. Why do so many people flee the ME to come to the West? Why do they say they're freer here?

My point Geoff is that they should be the one's to choose their political system. It is not our place to force them to adopt our system, especially when our system is not perfect or correct itself.

It clearly bloody isn't - is it the law and belief of the Pakistani guy? Exactly how many people in islamic countries don't believe in the system either? Kind of hard to tell, if the penalty for apostacy is death. I don't think I'd be sponsoring any democracy movements either, if I were there. We go on and on about how the leaders of islamic countries are corrupt and all, but it seems that people want to excuse them of what they do all the same. This is madness.

By going there, the Pakistani guy accepted and knew those laws were in place. The saying of 'when in Rome' applies here somewhat. I will be honest and say quite openly that I find it appalling that this man could be put to death in this way. Do I think this man should be helped? Hell yes, but I do not think that we are helping him in any way, shape or form by telling the persecutors that they are wrong and need to change immediately. What we can do to support and help this man is to support and help the people on the ground there if and when they do ask for it. What we should not be doing is ostracising the local community by telling them that they are backwards and that their religion and culture is barbaric. Doing so will only ensure that they will kill this poor man and that they will continue to commit such crimes because of the pure and simple fact that they do not want to be dictated by others on the outside. By telling them how wrong they are in the terms seen in this thread for example, we are putting at risk those who are there who are trying to change the laws and who are trying to educate the people and the community to try to stop such killings from taking place.

But shouldn't they? They only don't because they can't, or because they want trade. Why in the hell shouldn't they, though? Would it also be okay for the West to become a totalitarian dictatorship and persecute muslims like islamic nations persecute Christians and Jews? Why not? It's "our country" and "our way" after all. The merest requirement then would be majority consensus. Would this be right?

You're saying that we don't? Look at France and the hijab debacle. Look at how other Western countries now use racial profiling and are so suspect of any Muslim individual. Look at how many innocent Muslim people have been imprisoned without charge because they are Muslim and are automatically suspected of being terrorists. It is not right and never will be. So if we now tell Muslim countries that their treatment of non Muslims is wrong, bad, stupid, barbaric, etc, they can and will quite rightly reply that the West does not treat Muslims well either. In short, clean up your own home before commenting on the problems of another's home.

It utterly and absolutely is my right. This is politics - another playing field in which the teams are not even, and not even in the same ways, but which all nations play in the same way. I, as a protestor, can march against seal hunts, and for the end of genocide in the Sudan, and for religious freedom in the ummah, and for an end to nuclear weapons, and my voice (although individual or at least 'lay'; i.e. civilian) counts. This is politics. Do I have or not have the right to try to end apartheid? Genocide in Cambodia? The Vietnam War?

But you hit on the right note - think how many deaths we could have prevented. Think how much needless stupidity we could have stopped. I'm not saying that people need to stop being muslim, or that we should pressure them to do so - but we have every right to pressure them into not discriminating on the basis of religion. This is human rights, and there is an international charter dealing with this very issue.

Yes it is your right. Believe you me I am one of the one's who stands outside with a placard in protest against human rights abuses.. was nearly arrested once protesting against my country's lack of help in stopping the genocide in Sudan . However I was trying to point out that help will not come in the guise of telling them they are wrong and must stop. History has proven that in the past and sadly history keeps repeating itself. The best way to help and to protest against such policies in other countries is to offer help to those who wish to change their country's system, but do not force them to change or force our system down their throat as the only viable alternative. It has taken us hundreds of years to reach the so called enlightened state we now live in, we cannot expect or demand that other countries reach the same conclusion overnight. By ostracising the whole community in these countries, you are setting back those who are trying to implement change. The best way to help them change is to help them. The worst way is to demand change through force and abuse.

Because then he would not be killed.

No he would not be killed, but the thousands who live there who are trying to implement change by educating the community and through lobbying the Government will be. And then where do we stand? We then have a country that is even more recalcitrant in implementing change and who will withstand outside pressures even more because they do not want to appear to be weak or in the pockets of the West.

This is tu tuoque, and if we're going to invoke it, we might as well never do anything at all. Let Hitler sieze Europe; let Iran have nuclear weapons; let the Killing Fields soak red again; let blacks in South Africa stay under the bootheel; let the people behind the Iron Curtain stay imprisoned; let the US exploit nations; let everyone do whatever they want. Because, after all, we're all guilty of something.

You mean we didn't? I am not saying to let everyone do as they wish. Refer to above. I am saying that change cannot be forced. The people who live in South Africa were the one's who finally spoke out to implement the change, and thousands died as a result. What I am saying is that change should come from within, help to those trying to change the system should be given freely, but force should never be used as the countries and their Governments will reject it and will further entrench themselves in the systems that are so appalling.

The first part of this conflicts with your statement that it's "their ways, their culture". Are there dissidents or not? If there are, is it not our imperative to help them?

You won't help them by putting them at risk and by criticising their country in the way that we all have. Help should be available to them if and when they ask for it. You won't help them by forcing them to implement things in the way you see fit. They must be the one's to decide how change will be put in place. It is the people who live in those countries who must decide, not those on the outside. If there is a genocide, I would be the first person saying get the hell in there and stop it. But this is not a genocide. This is an attemp to educate and implement freedom, equal rights and a better way of living. Because of that, we must stand back, offer help to those who are trying to change the system and to offer it freely without criticism in how and what they are doing. It is easy for us on the outside to point the finger and tell them what they are doing wrong and how things should be. But it is the people who must want change and who must know what alternatives there are out there. And if and when they decide to change, help is there for them, but if we force them to change beyond what they are prepared to or before they are ready to change, then they will rebel and will turn on those who reside in those countries.

Will it? Did it do so, with Germany? With the Soviet Union? We have the power; why should we not use it?

And what will those that warp their beliefs - who, incidentally, appear to be running all their countries and constitute the majority of their populations - be doing while we sit on our backsides. The comments of CAIR and the rest make their position clear: islam is not meant to be 'dominated', but to dominate. Shall we simply sit back, hope that they change (and be astonished when nothing happens) and wait for the axe to fall on us?

You have the power but using it and trying to force change will result in civil war and in more deaths that we can even contemplate and will result in pushing change in those countries backward and not forward. If we try to force change and to force them to adopt the ways of the West, we will be the one's dominating, for these people it will be like falling out of the pan and into the fire. We must give the people the choice and help them if and when they make the choice. We must give help to those who are trying to change the system. Forcing the issue will not help those people and it will not help us in any way. I'm not saying to sit back and do nothing. I'm saying to not rush forward and do everything because we think we are right, as the result will be the opposite of what we'd hoped to achieve.

And all the while, the blood keeps running, the beliefs get stronger and the triumphalist message blares louder, and louder. The money keeps funneling in: influence, influence peddling, propaganda, and a media eager to eat it up. I agree whole-heartedly that influence is better than force; but in a civilizational war, every weapon to hand should be used, where there is moral precedent.

You think if you use force it won't? LOL! If we rush in and try to force them, we are only ensuring that the blood keeps running, their beliefs keep getting stronger and their message gets louder and louder and the money will funnel in even more and the propaganda will get even worse. War is never civilised. Never has been and never will be. The only weapon we should be interested in using at the moment is to respect those who are trying to implement change and to respect the manner in which they are trying to change and influence their culture and community. We need to say to those people that we trust them to do what is right. Screaming 'you're wrong' from the side lines does not show respect, nor does it show support. By doing so, we are giving the dictators and the Governments in those countries a stronger foothold.

Correct. I would not kill for religion; nor, at the same time, would I force anyone. But why maintain contact with such nations? Why not simply cut them off from all influence until such time as they change their ways? That, too, is our right.

If we cut them off completely, we are also leaving those people who are trying to change the system in the void of nothingness. The best way to help implement change is to help them and to offer aid when it is needed. Gaining the trust and respect of the people is the best way. Cutting them off and saying 'stuff you you're wrong' will not make them change. It will only ensure that they get worse.

 

[thedevilsreject]

My point Geoff is that they should be the one's to choose their political system. It is not our place to force them to adopt our system, especially when our system is not perfect or correct itself.

well then they have no cause to turn around and complain that their country has gone down the shit pan, with all due respect we are having to do the same thing in africa.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

But they want to choose our religeous, and political system's and if you should have the temerity to object, they will have no problem with the solution, they will just make you a foot shorter at the top, Makes a Injun hair cut look civilised.

 

[GeoffP]

My position is that we, as a civilization, must apply our fairly derived rules evenly. There's no question among us that murder for apostacy or homosexuality is not fair. We must be as even in our application of sanctions and international scorn in the case of islamism in the ME as racism in South Africa.

If we aren't, we're being hypocrites. And we'd best act soon: those like Diamond do indeed want to export their rules here. They commit these crimes - which to them are not crimes but fair application of their religious laws - not because we 'oppress' them but because they have religious injunction to do so. This sort of oppression has been going on long before this century, or last, or the one before. It's been ongoing for a thousand years. How far back in time should we extrapolate our guilt? And as for the French case, theirs is a special system contingent on soldarite and which opposes the overt personal presentation of religious symbols (including crosses and the Star of David). An equal-opportunity oppressor, if you must call it that.

I don't want to use force - but I have no compunction about hostility on other levels.

Geoff

 

[Bells]

My position is that we, as a civilization, must apply our fairly derived rules evenly. There's no question among us that murder for apostacy or homosexuality is not fair. We must be as even in our application of sanctions and international scorn in the case of islamism in the ME as racism in South Africa.

That's the thing. We have never been even in how we deal with humanitarian and political issues around the world. We have turned a blind eye to genocide and to disgusting practices of dictators around the world because we were so hell bent on looking after our own interests. Do I wish it was different? Hell yes. If we were, 900,000 people in Rwanda would have had to die. The sanctions that we have applied in the past to countries like Iraq has not pushed our cause. What it has done is to ensure that they hate us even more. Sanctions can be effective, but instead of pushing the people to overthrow dictators like Saddam, such dictators end up gaining more support because the people who need the help in those countries end up feeling rejected and think that the world has forgotten or does not care about them. Hundreds of thousands of children died in Iraq as a result of those sanctions. This does not help our cause in the West to try to get them to change. What they do end up turning to after feeling rejected by the wealthy countries is their religion and to the extremists who continue to push the message that they must fight the West because the West wants to bare witness to their destruction. Afghanistan is another prime example. We supported the Taliban so as to help them defeat the Russians, leading to a total disaster after the war, resulting in the oppresive laws and religious doctrines flourishing today. We may have defeated the Taliban, but the people of that country will always remember that we helped put them in the position they are today. By turning our backs on the people of those countries, we are helping the extremists to gain a stronger foothold.

If we aren't, we're being hypocrites. And we'd best act soon: those like Diamond do indeed want to export their rules here. They commit these crimes - which to them are not crimes but fair application of their religious laws - not because we 'oppress' them but because they have religious injunction to do so. This sort of oppression has been going on long before this century, or last, or the one before. It's been ongoing for a thousand years. How far back in time should we extrapolate our guilt? And as for the French case, theirs is a special system contingent on soldarite and which opposes the overt personal presentation of religious symbols (including crosses and the Star of David). An equal-opportunity oppressor, if you must call it that.

I agree with you. I detest the manner in which they attempt to force their religious laws and customs onto others. I also detest when Jehova's Witness missionaries come and knock on my door demanding that I believe as they believe. But we cannot fight oppression with another form of oppression. I agree that if they live in the West, they must abide by Western laws and respect that their religious laws and doctrines do not apply here. Sharia law is a religious law and when residing in a country like the US, it should never take precedence over US laws.. as an example. If they wish to apply it in their home then so be it, but it should never be superior to the laws that govern the country as a whole.

I will say now I have no wish to be converted to any religion. However, we should allow them the freedom to practice their religion within the confines of our laws. By respecting their right to practice their religion, we gain respect in return. I don't mean that we should allow them to forgo our laws and implement their own laws as a form of freedom, as I have said above that if you live in a country, then you must abide by the laws of that country.

Having said that, we complain that they are attempting to force their law, culture and religion down our throats, but we are also guilty of the same thing in many ways.

My stance on this issue is that force and hatred will not gain respect and understanding from them. What it will gain is hatred and the desire from them to entrench themselves further in the extremist and fundamentalist aspects of their religion and culture. Should we go in with force to save this man? I am tempted to say yes. But I know if I do, the result will not force a change in their cultural and religious laws. What it will force is a further entrenchment into those practices because of the resentment they will feel towards 'us' and our ways. Education is the best way to get them to change the customs that are so abhorrent to the rest of the world. Helping those who are trying to educate is essential. Supporting them is even more important. We aren't supporting them by forcing the issue on the populace of those countries, causing the people to turn further away from us and towards the fundamentalists.

 

[GeoffP]

My position is that islamofascism is the new Nazism. Look no further than the comments by the Iranian president. More than ensuring people abide by our laws in our own country, we must recognize attempts by organizations and lobbyists to change our laws, and subvert our country to their own form of barbarism. Supremacist organisations like CAIR should be shut down, cleaned out. I don't say that islam should be banned, of course.

At the same time, it isn't fair that the laws of islamic nations disallow other religions. Period. Going in with force? No, I wouldn't do that either. I'd merely withdraw aid, representation and recognition. Send all their students home; withdraw all ours. Seize national assets, boot out citizens. Establish a new wall.

Imagine a boot on a human face, for all time.

Now imagine that the person wearing the boot thinks his orders come from a god.

Geoff

 

[Godless]

Geoff im glad that you understood my sentiment. No I don't want to nuke anyone, ofcourse not, I'm afterall civil. But it has angered me even further than usual by re-surficing the Islamic debate and research further, it has angered me to the point, "that I made the statements" And that is it. I have a good friend in Ocklahoma City, he was Islamic, way before 9-11, we had good times, and he appeared not to be so extreme with his religion but very liberal such as some christians are.

He was from Iran, and had lived in the states several years, and spoke English rather well, though with an accent of course.

My point is, the only reform that can come from such a religion is not to take it to the extreme, heck even Christianity with it's bible if taken to the extreme it would be an untolerable religion. Such is it's history. Islam needs to modernize, That means it has to come to grips with human rights, over religious doctrines. They have to realize that it's doctrines are against our perceptions of human rights in a civil society. Not to say that Islamic society is not civil, but it surely as hell appears it to be. Because they live by their religious doctrines. Those muslims that don't take theier religion to the extreme and literally are the one's who have often spoken out, gotten out, and are slandering their own former religion, my only hope is more of them DH types start realizing that one can't possibly live by the doctrines of ancient books writen 1000's of years ago. That's why they live in poverty, they are fucked, and have no rights. If they choose to live by islamic doctrines, or any other religion doctrines to it's extreme.

Godless

 

[GeoffP]

Agreed.

Thanks mate. I wonder if DH could ever really understand the humanitarian issues, when you have nutters like Ahmenjidad telling us all that Western philosophy has not achieved humanity's goals or whatever. As if he thinks islamism and sharia would.

Geoff

 

[DiamondHearts]

To those reading, I'm sorry that this will be a long post. It seems that some people have been very busy presenting hate-filled views of Muslims (you know who you are) and engaging in presenting views for Muslims which we do not agree with. To correct the accusations against Muslims, I will present the proper view from the Islamic side.

First: stay on topic, please. First you're talking about the "subtle discrimination" of the West against muslims, then you're off on wars and destruction. We were talking about why Westerners regard islam with increasing suspicion, not about why islamic nations dislike Westerners.

This topic went off-track when you started using this thread as an excuse to present anything hateful and mean you could say about Muslims. Blame none but yourself.

Now, I'm not talking about the wars, which I don't support. I'm talking about the interest in humanitarian issues - like the killing of apostates and homosexuals,

You are taking my view of punishment for public apostasy and twisting it to something which I do not mean.

I believe that preaching another faith openly in a Muslim-majority area in an Islamic State is against the goal of which the state was founded on, Islamic propagation. It should be illegal because this public apostasy is preaching to try to encourage other Muslims to leave their religion.

I believe homosexuality should be illegal in an Islamic state due to its effect on the population, and the fact that the majority of the population disagrees with it. The punishment does not have to be execution, exile can be enforced as well.

There isn't a license to kill indiscrimately in an Islamic state as you seem to be presenting. The individual must be charged with this crime in a court and he has to deny it three times, if he denies it once, then he will be let go and the case will be dissolved. There are very rare cases of execution of homosexuals in the Islamic world. As far as the execution of public apostasy by law, the individual also has to swear this three times and acknowledge his intention of trying to convert and spread his faith among Muslims. The convert case in Afghanistan was the first case in a long time, and this was due to more than just preaching, he also engaging in public blasphemy, illegal converting of people using goods provided by christian evangelists to needy people (bible and food as prerequisite for conversion). If a person converts from Islam and does not publicy try to convert Muslims (like in bazaar or outside mosque, or in street), there cannot be any crime charged. Private apostasy is not punishable.

the overt oppression of religious minorities and women,

Minorities in Islamic countries are allowed to practice their religion any way they choose. They simply are not allowed to convert indigenous Muslim people from the faith of Islam. If the practice of religious minorities in an Islamic country is hindered, it is not following the orders of Islam.

This is evident in this letter of the Prophet Muhammad (s) to Christian monks:

This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them.

* Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.

* Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

* No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.

* The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).

As I have presented, women are not treated poorly in Islamic countries. They are not forced to wear scarves in public (they remove scarfs at home, or with extended families, or in the company of other women), this is part of the culture and custom of Islamic nations for hundreds of years (even before Islam). This is quite evident in the way women in Eastern Europe and India cover their heads to preserve their modesty. There are also restrictions on men concerning how they can dress, for example men have to cover their knees and their belly buttons, it is preferred they cover their chest and shoulders as well, they cannot have longer hair than shoulder length, they cannot wear gold or silk while women can, earrings, etc.

and the complete separation of church and state in islamic nations,

This is the difference between our view points because we value our religion as complete truth and your people do not. However, even in the West there isn't a true separation of Church and State. Christian dogma is imminient in the speeches of your leaders and influence of the christian leaders on the people.

to say nothing of the apparent support for islamic supremacism and terrorism.

It is our legitimate right to pursue any form of governance we choose. Your rhetoric of supremacism and terrorism has no meaning. Anything Islamic and anyone Islamic is terrorist and islamofascist to you.

Osama Bin Laden is a hero in all kinds of islamic nations. And he's a terrorist. That isn't good.

I dare you to find one Muslim on this forum who will agree with this. Spreading this kind of information will not get you anywhere.

There are imams all over Europe and the US preaching hate. What should we think about a religion like that?

Xenophobic statements. Its obvious listening to you, who is indeed spreading hate. What should we think of you?

Secondly: moving "backwards"?? How have these nations moved backwards as a result of any Western influence? Citizens of islamic nations today enjoy more rights because of civil rights influences from Western nations, not in spite of them.

Imperialism, Intervention, using of World Bank, Sanctions, Threats of violence.

Everything good that happens to us or anyone else does not have to be from the West, The West isn't perfect which is evident today. Islam has been responsible for many of the positive influences and indeed our cultural links and heritage in our region. The West has brought great achievements in science, this is all the West has done. When the wealth of the world is concentrated in the West, this is natural.

Now, are they ruled by dictators? Many are. Wealth distribution in their nations is not at all equal; but those nations are also free to decide how they distribute wealth as they see fit. When Iranians overthrew the Shaw, things didn't suddenly take a turn for the better. If you want to assign some blame to the West for this, I would agree; but far from all of it.

I wonder when the West will help us remove our dictators like the Saudis (which they helped put in power and fund to this day)?

Things in Iran are much better under the new government and the people are much happier. The Shah was a tyrant and a traitor of his people. (It's spelled Shah, not Shaw, by the way)

This is akin to excusing the Holocaust on cultural grounds. "Well, everyone knows that Germans hate Jews, so we shouldn't stick our noses in. It's their belief system, after all."

Ok, so now we are Nazis. Funny how he claims we are haters.

But - cold fact: murder in the name of religion is wrong.

Execution is not murder. By the way, does this mean that murder is ok for other beliefs like governments, ideologies, or civilizing islamofascist children, women and elderly (by US, Israeli militaries) in the Middle East?

Sharia is wrong. There are those trying to export it here, and there, and everywhere. Exploitation of other nations can operate just as surely among islamic ones as non-islamic ones. Sharia is an extra negative.

Yet it is a capitalist nation (America) which invaded Iraq on lies, not a sharia nation.

OK - now say something nice about the people of the West, as you enjoined me to say about islam and muslims. Go on. Your tongue won't fall out. I promise.

I have many times, perhaps you weren't listening because you were so busy cursing Muslims and promoting hatered.

As I have said, my only problem is with the bush administration and other expansionist governments in the West who usurp and exploit the innocent people of their own nations.

Hmm - I don't know; a sense of right, an appreciation of the value of human life, of respect, of fairness, of honour.

Forgot to add your hatred against Islam and anything to do with it.

How we want to conquer all our Non-Muslims brothers, right GeoffP?

Islam is not devoid of these things - merely the kind that Diamond practices and reveres. How common her views are is another matter.

So, what type of Islam do I practice? Am I Shia or Sunni? You obviously don't know since you assumed I was Shia, even though I quoted Sahih Bukhari numerous times. Shows the extent of your knowlege of Islam.

And which must be brutally suppressed to prevent them contaminating islam with their presence, which is scripturally akin to urine in islam.

Again, your hatred has no ends. Muslims do not believe this at all, stop trying to fool yourself. Everyone knows already you don't know anything of Islam.

GeoffP isn't the only one who thought you were a woman, on several posts you answered questions from a female point of perspective on the treatment of women in Islam

Merely because I defended Muslim women, makes me one? If you read back, I had said 'our mothers, sisters, wives, etc' when referring to them. Nice try attempting to defend GeoffP, but he leaves too many holes in his arguments for you alone to cover up.

are you transgender?

No, sorry to break your hopes.

Don't you think Muslims are capable of deciding what is right or wrong?

Yes, people need to understand this.

Really? How do we know, when DH and his ilk want to run around, hacking the heads off of people who convert from islam, let alone try to change the religio-political system.

not quite.

Why do so many people flee the ME to come to the West? Why do they say they're freer here?

Money. Jobs. Better Education. I hate it when people try to imply other reasons, its compeltely false. Muslims are more free to practice their religions without suspicion in Islamic countries. They come here for a wealthy life. Many people think why work back-breaking labor in the home country, if you can come to America and sit in a store and make a year's salary in a month.

The comments of CAIR and the rest make their position clear: islam is not meant to be 'dominated', but to dominate. Shall we simply sit back, hope that they change (and be astonished when nothing happens) and wait for the axe to fall on us?

What exactly are you implying of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)? Do you think they want to control America, are you seriously this foolish?

One problem though, Muslims who now reside in democratic countries are lobbying to make Sharia law part of the laws of that country. So no, they do not respect those laws, they want to change them.

No, not really. What kind of outrageous statement is this? We are the center of attention and hatred in the West, its people like you who make it worse for Muslims. Don't talk about things you have know knowledge about.

It is very gratifying to note that the worst Christian evangelists can be accused of is 'providing food, water and shelter 'or in other words showing the real love of God in a practical way.

Are you really pleased when Christian evangelists go to third world countries and only offer aid if the people enbrace christianity? (Giving a Bible and Food Supplies, and telling people to take both or neither)

Not deception you say?

Couple this with how we know religious minorities are treated in islamic countries (which, ironically, the defense that they are "not islamic" is sometimes given; "more islamic" axiomatically appearing to be even more oppressive as per DH's statements on evangelisation in the ummah) and the convert they almost killed in Afghanistan (and note again the support for that) and it presents a very unsettling picture of religious supremacismm and the extent of it in the ummah. DH himself indicates that his views are of the majority in Pakistan, and other islamic nations.

A rehash of your previous statements.

I don't want to use force - but I have no compunction about hostility on other levels.

And to say nothing of your support for nuking Makkah and anti-Muslim hatred.

My position is that islamofascism is the new Nazism.

Islamofascism (a loaded word meaning Islam).

Look no further than the comments by the Iranian president.

You people act as if he killed 6 million innocent people, what ever happened to you people when the Israelis were murdering Palestinians? Oh yeah, you were supporting their right to expel more Palestinians.

More than ensuring people abide by our laws in our own country, we must recognize attempts by organizations and lobbyists to change our laws, and subvert our country to their own form of barbarism. Supremacist organisations like CAIR should be shut down, cleaned out. I don't say that islam should be banned, of course.

What happened to you when your government made the Patriot act?

Now are are Barbarians, along with Nazis, Islamofascists, Supremacists, etc...

Calling CAIR supremacist is pretty childish.

At the same time, it isn't fair that the laws of islamic nations disallow other religions.

Disallow...?

Thanks mate. I wonder if DH could ever really understand the humanitarian issues, when you have nutters like Ahmenjidad telling us all that Western philosophy has not achieved humanity's goals or whatever. As if he thinks islamism and sharia would.

If we believed this, we wouldn't be Muslims. Just accept the fact that not everyone thinks as you do.


Some good advice:

Prophet (s) said: "O People! Spread the salaam (greetings of peace), and serve the food, and pray while the people are asleep, you will enter Jannah (Paradise) peacefully." [Tirmidhi]

 

[(Q)]

I will present the proper view from the Islamic side.

That being, of course, the biased side.

I believe that preaching another faith openly in a Muslim-majority area in an Islamic State is against the goal of which the state was founded on, Islamic propagation. It should be illegal because this public apostasy is preaching to try to encourage other Muslims to leave their religion.

You are advocating slavery. People should be free to do as they please. You may attempt propagation of Islam, but to make leaving Islam illegal supports the view that Islam is by the sword, not by the will. If by the will, then people can worship who they please.

I believe homosexuality should be illegal in an Islamic state due to its effect on the population, and the fact that the majority of the population disagrees with it. The punishment does not have to be execution, exile can be enforced as well.

What effect does homosexuality have on the population of an Islamic state, other than those Muslims who are homosexuals and are forced to do so behind closed doors? What crime have they commited to warrant exile? Clearly, Islam is not a live and let live style of religion.

There isn't a license to kill indiscrimately in an Islamic state as you seem to be presenting. The individual must be charged with this crime in a court and he has to deny it three times, if he denies it once, then he will be let go and the case will be dissolved.

That sounds a lot like mumbo-jumbo voodoo.

There are very rare cases of execution of homosexuals in the Islamic world. As far as the execution of public apostasy by law, the individual also has to swear this three times and acknowledge his intention of trying to convert and spread his faith among Muslims.

More voodoo. What does repetition have do to with guilt?

The convert case in Afghanistan was the first case in a long time, and this was due to more than just preaching, he also engaging in public blasphemy, illegal converting of people using goods provided by christian evangelists to needy people (bible and food as prerequisite for conversion). If a person converts from Islam and does not publicy try to convert Muslims (like in bazaar or outside mosque, or in street), there cannot be any crime charged. Private apostasy is not punishable.

Yes, let's charge people with serious crimes when they offer food to the needy. It would appear complete hypocrisy if Allah did in fact create that food - didn't he?

As I have presented, women are not treated poorly in Islamic countries./quote]

Sorry, DH, the facts speak for themselves, contrary to your presentations.

This is the difference between our view points because we value our religion as complete truth and your people do not. However, even in the West there isn't a true separation of Church and State. Christian dogma is imminient in the speeches of your leaders and influence of the christian leaders on the people.

Christians are as vehemently indoctrinated with their religion as you are, no difference there.

It is our legitimate right to pursue any form of governance we choose. Your rhetoric of supremacism and terrorism has no meaning. Anything Islamic and anyone Islamic is terrorist and islamofascist to you.

That is a lie, you MUST have Islamic governments, no other governments are acceptable.

Execution is not murder.

Yes, it is.

Money. Jobs. Better Education. I hate it when people try to imply other reasons, its compeltely false. Muslims are more free to practice their religions without suspicion in Islamic countries. They come here for a wealthy life. Many people think why work back-breaking labor in the home country, if you can come to America and sit in a store and make a year's salary in a month.

Or, they know they are free in America and are slaves in their home country. That is pretty much what you said.

No, not really. What kind of outrageous statement is this? We are the center of attention and hatred in the West, its people like you who make it worse for Muslims.

As usual, you completely ignore the facts. If you actually knew what was going on inNorth America, you would not be so ignorant of what Muslims are doing in their quest to add Sharia law to state or provincial laws. Read here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/shariaon3.htm

Calling CAIR supremacist is pretty childish.

Read here: http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sharia.shtml

 

[DiamondHearts]

As usual, you completely ignore the facts. If you actually knew what was going on inNorth America, you would not be so ignorant of what Muslims are doing in their quest to add Sharia law to state or provincial laws. Read here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/shariaon3.htm



Read here: http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sharia.shtml

CAIR's vision is to be a leading advocate for justice and mutual understanding.

CAIR's mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

Since its establishment in 1994, CAIR has worked to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims in America.

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=About

A bit xenophobic of Muslims are we.

Why don't you try to make some Muslim friends and try to learn about Muslims instead of passing judgement on people who you don't know about.

Muslims don't care at all about Sharia law in countries who are not Muslim majority. Islam for Muslims, the rest what they decide themselves.

Peace.

 

[GeoffP]

This topic went off-track when you started using this thread as an excuse to present anything hateful and mean you could say about Muslims. Blame none but yourself.

My heart positively breaks for you.

You are taking my view of punishment for public apostasy and twisting it to something which I do not mean.

This was utterly laughable: "I support the death penalty for apostacy, but you're taking it all wrong."

I believe that preaching another faith openly in a Muslim-majority area in an Islamic State is against the goal of which the state was founded on, Islamic propagation. It should be illegal because this public apostasy is preaching to try to encourage other Muslims to leave their religion.

And so? What's wrong with them leaving islam? Why shouldn't people be allowed a religious choice? Muslims are allowed to preach elsewhere: should we kill them, then? How in the hell can you possibly see this as fair? Idiot.

I believe homosexuality should be illegal in an Islamic state due to its effect on the population, and the fact that the majority of the population disagrees with it. The punishment does not have to be execution, exile can be enforced as well.

What "effect on the population"? Why are you such a pathetic homophobe? A little uncertain about your masculinity, are you? So if the majority of the population agrees with discrimination, then it's all right. I see. So if the majority of the population agrees with discrimination against muslims in the West, it's all right then? Because I'll bet with spokemen like you, it won't be long in coming.

There isn't a license to kill indiscrimately in an Islamic state as you seem to be presenting. The individual must be charged with this crime in a court and he has to deny it three times, if he denies it once, then he will be let go and the case will be dissolved.

Utter, utter fool: you are proving my point exactly. The mere fact that someone can be legally murdered killed for leaving islam at all is evidence of the fact that your society is sick, and not to be emulated, anywhere. You seem - like a mental deficient, a madman, a fascist or a small child - totally unable to grasp that this is the element of islamic evil most abhorrent to thinking people everywhere. Far from ever embracing your sick ideology, the fact of this punishment and your twisted support in it are among the greatest assurances that Western philosophy is far, far superior to the leakings of an epileptic merchant from the 7th century.

Your phrases themselves leave no doubt as to the corruption of your position: "more than just preaching", "public blasphemy", "illegal converting of people" (and how could he possibly 'use goods' for that? please be reasonable; giving someone a Bible is not conversion).

Minorities in Islamic countries are allowed to practice their religion any way they choose.

Except openly; such as repairing a church, for example.

This is evident in this letter of the Prophet Muhammad (s) to Christian monks:

A uncited letter mentioning nothing of amnesty for apostacy, or of the equality of the religions. Because, whatever truce might have been in place, there was no such equality.

As I have presented, women are not treated poorly in Islamic countries. They are not forced to wear scarves in public (they remove scarfs at home, or with extended families, or in the company of other women),

As I have presented, they certainly bloody are. They are INDEED forced to wear scarves in public and there are penalties for not doing so, you utter liar. The rest of your post comprises phrases beginning "they cannot".

This is the difference between our view points because we value our religion as complete truth and your people do not. However, even in the West there isn't a true separation of Church and State. Christian dogma is imminient in the speeches of your leaders and influence of the christian leaders on the people.

Rather, we believe in the right of all to believe and preach as they like, which is true religious freedom. Don't even pretend to criticize American religious influences when you defend sharia, hypocrite.

It is our legitimate right to pursue any form of governance we choose. Your rhetoric of supremacism and terrorism has no meaning. Anything Islamic and anyone Islamic is terrorist and islamofascist to you.

It is our legitimate right to take steps to protect our society from those with your viewpoint. You attempt to turn the issues on their head by reversing my accusations of supremacism; it fails. I don't consider everything islamic terrorist or supremacist; but if all muslims are like you then islam is indeed supremacist.

I dare you to find one Muslim on this forum who will agree with this. Spreading this kind of information will not get you anywhere.

I'd only be hard pressed to find one who would openly admit it. I wonder if your little cheerleader thinks he's great. Denying this kind of information will get you nowhere.

Xenophobic statements. Its obvious listening to you, who is indeed spreading hate. What should we think of you?

LMAO - you are indeed an idiot. You conveniently ignore the fact that imams all over Europe and NAm are spreading vicious, hateful lies against other religions, besides supporting islamic violence and supremacism, and you instead attempt to accuse me of the same thing. I can only assume this is a dying gasp of an argument.

Imperialism, Intervention, using of World Bank, Sanctions, Threats of violence.

Terrorism, state funding and protection of terrorists, oppression of minorities, funding of radicalism in the West, spreading anti-Semitic hate, murdering women and apostates, threatening Holocaust against Europeans and Christians and secularists.

Everything good that happens to us or anyone else does not have to be from the West, The West isn't perfect which is evident today. Islam has been responsible for many of the positive influences and indeed our cultural links and heritage in our region. The West has brought great achievements in science, this is all the West has done. When the wealth of the world is concentrated in the West, this is natural.

The only reason human rights are improving in islamic countries today is because of the Western example. I can see your hate through and through; tough.

I wonder when the West will help us remove our dictators like the Saudis (which they helped put in power and fund to this day)?

Well the West removed that one in Iraq but a great many muslims seem really angry about it. Maybe it's better we leave you under your dictatorships, and simply cut things off.

Things in Iran are much better under the new government and the people are much happier. The Shah was a tyrant and a traitor of his people. (It's spelled Shah, not Shaw, by the way)

Ah - so it's a spelling challenge? OK. I'll put all yours at the top of my responses.

Happier? LOL. Unless you're the one being executed, I'm sure.

Ok, so now we are Nazis. Funny how he claims we are haters.

Merely a comparison - don't like it? If the shoe fits...

Execution is not murder.

The execution of innocent people is murder. The other argument was mere tu tuoque, which is about the limit of what I'd expect from a sub-par legalist.

Yet it is a capitalist nation (America) which invaded Iraq on lies, not a sharia nation.

So you want liberation, then you don't. Supremacists and fascists - such as yourself - only really want one thing: dominance.

I have many times

A lie. Where? The science comment was a backhanded insult.

As I have said, my only problem is with the bush administration and other expansionist governments in the West who usurp and exploit the innocent people of their own nations.

And your hatred specifically for the Bush admin alone would be why you direct your bile at the West in general - its moralities, its knowledge, its wealth, its politics, its people.

Right.

Forgot to add your hatred against Islam and anything to do with it.

Wrong again: apparently you only read those parts of posts you like. Sad. Really.

How we want to conquer all our Non-Muslims brothers, right GeoffP?

You're the supremacist, not me. I'd be content for your kind of belief to merely fuck off and keep itself in the dark - so long as it weren't oppressing women and religious minorites. Guess that isn't going to happen, though.

So, what type of Islam do I practice?

The kind that requires the spilling of blood in the name of the moon god. You whine on and on about how great that old paedophile, the Ayatollah, is, so I naturally expected you to be Shia. You could be Wahhabi, of course; the epitome of stupidity. I really couldn't care what sect you are. Your views are sufficient to damn you.

Again, your hatred has no ends. Muslims do not believe this at all

And the reason for that list then is...?

Merely because I defended Muslim women, makes me one? If you read back, I had said 'our mothers, sisters, wives, etc' when referring to them. Nice try attempting to defend GeoffP, but he leaves too many holes in his arguments for you alone to cover up.

LMAO - fool. Mountain described you with the pronoun "she". I'm sorry you consider being thought female an insult.

not quite.

A lie. You support the murder of apostates; that's enough, really.

Money. Jobs. Better Education. I hate it when people try to imply other reasons, its compeltely false. Muslims are more free to practice their religions without suspicion in Islamic countries.

Well, that certainly explains why they tell me in argument that they're freer here than in the ME. About 25% of British muslims dump islam in the second generation; I'm sure there's no correlation there.

What exactly are you implying of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)?

That they want the USA to be islamic, and that islam should dominate, not be dominated. Are you seriously so foolish that you don't know that?

its people like you who make it worse for Muslims.

It's people like you that make it worse. Your attitudes are repulsive, your supremacism disgusting.

Are you really pleased when Christian evangelists go to third world countries and only offer aid if the people enbrace christianity? (Giving a Bible and Food Supplies, and telling people to take both or neither)

A lie.

And to say nothing of your support for nuking Makkah and anti-Muslim hatred.

I support the threat of use against Makkah in the event of an islamofascist attack on the West. What's wrong with that? Don't nuke us, we won't nuke you.

Islamofascism (a loaded word meaning Islam).

An accurate word meaning your version of islam, although I begin to wonder if there is any other kind, since I've never heard a muslim renounce any of your kind of viewpoints, ever.

You people

"You people". A telling comment. The Israel-Palestinian position has been dealt with elsewhere; simply put, there is responsiblity on both sides but the Israelis did not start the violence.

What happened to you when your government made the Patriot act?

We became very marginally more like yours. A tiny, tiny bit.

Calling CAIR supremacist is pretty childish.

Not being aware of the fact that they are supremacist is pretty ignorant.

In any event, I think your comment at the end sums up your supremacism nicely:

If we believed this, we wouldn't be Muslims. Just accept the fact that not everyone thinks as you do.

Then - if they really believe as you - their influence here must be limited or purged.

Here's some other advice from Mohammed:

"If a man leaves his religion, kill him."

Geoff

 

[GeoffP]

Muslims don't care at all about Sharia law in countries who are not Muslim majority. Islam for Muslims, the rest what they decide themselves.

Except for non-muslims in muslim countries, who must be brutally oppressed.

You're also a bit out-of-date regarding CAIR:

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

 

[Bells]

You are taking my view of punishment for public apostasy and twisting it to something which I do not mean.

I believe that preaching another faith openly in a Muslim-majority area in an Islamic State is against the goal of which the state was founded on, Islamic propagation. It should be illegal because this public apostasy is preaching to try to encourage other Muslims to leave their religion.

I believe homosexuality should be illegal in an Islamic state due to its effect on the population, and the fact that the majority of the population disagrees with it. The punishment does not have to be execution, exile can be enforced as well.

There isn't a license to kill indiscrimately in an Islamic state as you seem to be presenting. The individual must be charged with this crime in a court and he has to deny it three times, if he denies it once, then he will be let go and the case will be dissolved. There are very rare cases of execution of homosexuals in the Islamic world. As far as the execution of public apostasy by law, the individual also has to swear this three times and acknowledge his intention of trying to convert and spread his faith among Muslims. The convert case in Afghanistan was the first case in a long time, and this was due to more than just preaching, he also engaging in public blasphemy, illegal converting of people using goods provided by christian evangelists to needy people (bible and food as prerequisite for conversion). If a person converts from Islam and does not publicy try to convert Muslims (like in bazaar or outside mosque, or in street), there cannot be any crime charged. Private apostasy is not punishable.

No offense but this made my eyes bleed. You claim that Geoff was distorting your views, but in truth he was not. In fact, I think he was being kind. You believe that preaching of other faiths in an Islamic state should be illegal and the punishment severe, so how would you feel if Muslims were treated the same in other countries? How do you feel about Muslim women being forced to take up Western style of dress because they live in a Christian backed country and they are seen as attempting to subvert other Christians by wearing their garb? It would be wrong, would it not? I think it would be wrong, because then the Christian country would be infringing on the person's right to practice their religion and to embrace their faith.

You agree that jailing a man for handing out a bible with food and aid that the people of Afghanistan so desperately need is something he should be punished for? Frankly I find that appalling.

I need to ask, what are you afraid of? If a person feels strongly about their faith and their religion, no amount of bible thumping Christians is going to make them change their mind or convert them. These people desperately need aid. The need food, shelter, medical help, etc. Does it really matter who gives it to them? I quite agree that people should be free to choose what they wish to believe in. But when aid is needed, you should not punish the hand that is providing the aid just because he may wear a crucifix or gives out a bible. I'd have thought that an Islamic state would be more concerned that their populace be fed, clothed, sheltered from the elements and that this would be a primary concern. It would be mine. I'm an atheist and I can tell you now, if my house burns down and the only aid offered to me comes with a bible, I'd take the aid and say thank you and ignore the bible. I would not turn it down because it came from the hands of a Christian. But then, that's just me. But for you to say that people who do this should be punished? Come on DH.

As for homosexuality. Again, what are you afraid of? That they are going to convert all the available men to ways of manly flesh? You don't believe they should be killed (and the way you said it did shock me I must admit), but you think they should be exiled as though they were lepers? Right. They can't help being homosexual, just as you can't help being heterosexual. You state that the majority of the population disagrees with it as a fact, but you state no proof of this 'fact'. A high number of your population could be homosexual and simply hiding it behind the facade you seem to think should be forced on people. Who knows. But to think that execution could even factor into it.. and then to say that an alternative to execution could be exile... well.. disgusting really.

Minorities in Islamic countries are allowed to practice their religion any way they choose. They simply are not allowed to convert indigenous Muslim people from the faith of Islam. If the practice of religious minorities in an Islamic country is hindered, it is not following the orders of Islam.

And how would they do that? Can they wear a crucifix? Can they have a cross on their church steeple? You can't convert those who don't wish to be converted DH. As I said before, if a person is happy in their religion and believes strongly in it, then someone handing out a bible should not be something to fear.

Execution is not murder. By the way, does this mean that murder is ok for other beliefs like governments, ideologies, or civilizing islamofascist children, women and elderly (by US, Israeli militaries) in the Middle East?

It's not? So taking the life of a person without their consent is not murder? So if someone were to force you to kneel down, put a gun to the back of your head and thereby executing you, that would not be murder? Riiigghhtt. Personally I find any country that practices the death penalty as being morally bankrupt and backward. But again, that's just me.

I had made the statement that Muslims are quite capable of deciding what is right and wrong. But seriously, you do have a long way to go. And I do hope with all my heart that the true Muslims in Islamic states who are trying to change the way the system is now (the system you appear to be defending) do get the help they need, because they're going to need a hell of a lot of it.

 

[DiamondHearts]

If you have been reading GeoffP's views regarding Muslims, you will see that he is full of hate and implies false things to take an advantage in this debate. I refuse to let GeoffP be a spokesman for my views. His hatred and bigotry has filled his eyes and his mind. Among other false things he claims Muslims consider non-Muslims like urine, we want to enslave all of humanity, kill everyone who isn't Muslim, and supports nuking of holy city of Makkah if a terrorist bombed a western city, endangering the lives of millions of innocents. Instead of denouncing terrorists, he has furthered the false notion that islam is responsible for this not politics or exploitation of others. He puts words in the mouths of others, implying statements they never said. There needs to be some honest people to counter these hateful views, but people's silence on this forum indicates there is a general lack of concern for others.

No offense but this made my eyes bleed. You claim that Geoff was distorting your views, but in truth he was not. In fact, I think he was being kind.

An anti-Islamic bigot is no mouthpiece for Islam. If you think he was being kind, then you need to read his previous posts more closely. I doubt anyone would like GeoffP being their personal shadow and commentator.

I have made my political views clearly, I am only against public apostasy from Islam.

You believe that preaching of other faiths in an Islamic state should be illegal and the punishment severe, so how would you feel if Muslims were treated the same in other countries?

I believe that when it is a challenge to the foundations and ideals of the state (subverting ideology of the State) there should be some consequences. Different cases depend differently on the punishment. Exile, Execution, and even forgiveness (if the crime in minimal) all are on the table. The citizens should know the law of living under an Islamic state, it is their own choice to break it willfully then they should expect to be punished.

Those who are under contract under the Islamic State as Muslims (after the age of puberty or later acceptance of Islam), are not allowed to pubicly claim a break of this because this will effect weak among Muslims and spread apostasy from Islam.

One need only look at the history of Islam, particularly the Khawariji to learn of the devastating effects such a thing will have on our society.

Non-Muslims however may practice freely their religions, convert to any religion they choose, assemble at their churches, temples, hold festivities, and repair their churches. These people are allowed to drink alcohol, eat swine, etc in private if they choose, and have the right to their own private religious courts to judge them. They are exempt from military service (if they pay Jizya, military exemption tax) and have the same rights as Muslims under the state, only they cannot convert Muslims to their faith.

To completely understand this view from the Muslim side you must think as Muslims would think. The punishment for ruining or ending an innocent person's life in this life, is execution. A life for a life. What then would be the punishment of a person who ruins another's afterlife which is for eternity?

We do not expect the West to support us in this, but they have no right to interfere in our politics. If the majority of our people wish to rule by Islamic law, we will do so, without anyone else's approval.

How do you feel about Muslim women being forced to take up Western style of dress because they live in a Christian backed country and they are seen as attempting to subvert other Christians by wearing their garb? It would be wrong, would it not? I think it would be wrong, because then the Christian country would be infringing on the person's right to practice their religion and to embrace their faith.

It is wrong to not allow a person to dress modesty if they chose, yet we have no right to force this change on you.

You agree that jailing a man for handing out a bible with food and aid that the people of Afghanistan so desperately need is something he should be punished for? Frankly I find that appalling.

I am not against Christians giving aid, as a matter of fact I welcome this.
I am against the use of aid and food to force people who are in necessity to change their faith to obtain this aid, especially in a Non-Christian country. This is a very common tactic among American Evangelists to gain converts in the poor third world.

I need to ask, what are you afraid of? If a person feels strongly about their faith and their religion, no amount of bible thumping Christians is going to make them change their mind or convert them. These people desperately need aid. The need food, shelter, medical help, etc. Does it really matter who gives it to them? I quite agree that people should be free to choose what they wish to believe in. But when aid is needed, you should not punish the hand that is providing the aid just because he may wear a crucifix or gives out a bible.

I never once said Christians should be prevented from giving aid, I merely stated that Christian missionaries use a tactic of going to Non-Christians and offering them aid if they convert only.

I'd have thought that an Islamic state would be more concerned that their populace be fed, clothed, sheltered from the elements and that this would be a primary concern. It would be mine. I'm an atheist and I can tell you now, if my house burns down and the only aid offered to me comes with a bible, I'd take the aid and say thank you and ignore the bible. I would not turn it down because it came from the hands of a Christian. But then, that's just me. But for you to say that people who do this should be punished? Come on DH.

These are necessities but no one has the right to try to change a person's views due to their need of food and supplies.

I know if my family was starving, I would probably accept this aid too. Human life is precious and people under necessity should not be subjected to such extreme things merely because they are experiencing diffulty. This is much deeper than just aid though, this is preserving culture, heritage, and future of people.

As for homosexuality. Again, what are you afraid of? That they are going to convert all the available men to ways of manly flesh? You don't believe they should be killed (and the way you said it did shock me I must admit), but you think they should be exiled as though they were lepers? Right. They can't help being homosexual, just as you can't help being heterosexual. You state that the majority of the population disagrees with it as a fact, but you state no proof of this 'fact'. A high number of your population could be homosexual and simply hiding it behind the facade you seem to think should be forced on people. Who knows. But to think that execution could even factor into it.. and then to say that an alternative to execution could be exile... well.. disgusting really.

You view homosexuality as natural only because it has become acceptable in your society. Our view is homosexuality is artificial, and no man is born in a state of homosexuality, it is the society which allows them and encourages them to do so. The fact I state is the majority populations in Islamic countries support laws to prevent homosexuality and sexual perversion.

And how would they do that? Can they wear a crucifix? Can they have a cross on their church steeple? You can't convert those who don't wish to be converted DH. As I said before, if a person is happy in their religion and believes strongly in it, then someone handing out a bible should not be something to fear.

Islamic states have different applications of these rules (Islamic view is not monolithic concerning this), but Non-Muslims in an Islamic State may worship, assemble, and have festivities as they like.

They may hand out Bible and pray as they like in their churches.

It's not? So taking the life of a person without their consent is not murder? So if someone were to force you to kneel down, put a gun to the back of your head and thereby executing you, that would not be murder? Riiigghhtt.

I doubt anyone (including known murderers) would consent to execution, even if they were at fault and deserved it.

Execution is the taking of life, according to the just law, after a verdict has been reached in the courts in a proper trial ragrding an enfringement of a law in the government which is punishable by capital punishment.

Murder is the extrajudicial taking of a life which is unjust.

I had made the statement that Muslims are quite capable of deciding what is right and wrong. But seriously, you do have a long way to go.

As does the West.

And I do hope with all my heart that the true Muslims in Islamic states who are trying to change the way the system is now (the system you appear to be defending) do get the help they need, because they're going to need a hell of a lot of it.

An Islamic State does not exist as of now, however again it is your wish for Muslims to disregard their religion and its application of law (you are an athiest afterall).

Islamic law is a an entire set of laws and rules, you will know nothing of it unless you research the system. Just as various forms of Communism, Capitalism, you cannot know of the entire system just because of a few laws, without knowing the wisdom of the whole system. An Islamic State is made for the indigenous Muslim majority to support their aspirations and ideals, not for the West.

For further reading:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/humanrights/

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/moralsystem.html

"Your Sustainer has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your lifetime, do not say to them a word of contempt nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility and say: My Sustainer! Bestow on them Your mercy, even as they cherished me in childhood." (17:23-24)

Respect for other human beings, family, strangers, and poor is the duty of every Muslim and every citizen under the Islamic State which is made to better the lives of all people it serves.

Peace.

 

[GeoffP]

If you have been reading GeoffP's views regarding Muslims, you will see that he is full of hate and implies false things to take an advantage in this debate. I refuse to let GeoffP be a spokesman for my views. His hatred and bigotry has filled his eyes and his mind.

Says the one who thinks apostates should be put to death.

The rest of it is nonsense: I do indeed denouce terrorists, and I denounce the religious views that spawn terrorism - all such views. If such hatred is spawning terror, then should not the very thing that such hatred holds in veneration be threatened? There would be far fewer people at Mecca than Riyadh, or Tehran. It's late to claim that religious icons should be off limits, I would say: broken Bhuddist statues and Christian sites in Jerusalem already attest to the way opinion swings in the ummah.

Among other false things he claims Muslims consider non-Muslims like urine

I know of muslims who believe exactly that; besides which the concept is hugely insulting, a point that DH is completely unable to address. I have never, ever said that all muslims believe this - but some most assuredly do. Why, further, the ban on non-muslims entering Mecca, then? This viewpoint is thus clearly expressed in modern islamic practice. And could DH ever answer my question regarding why such a list should exist in the first place?

we want to enslave all of humanity

"Islam" means "submission"; and you too have expressed a preference that the world be muslim. You also seem to think that dhimmitude is a perfectly acceptable condition for non-muslims.

He puts words in the mouths of others, implying statements they never said.

A lie. Indicate where, please.

There needs to be some honest people to counter these hateful views, but people's silence on this forum indicates there is a general lack of concern for others.

The latter is ironic considering your lack of concern for human life.

An anti-Islamic bigot is no mouthpiece for Islam. If you think he was being kind, then you need to read his previous posts more closely. I doubt anyone would like GeoffP being their personal shadow and commentator.

I have the right to express my opinions where and when I like. This is not Pakistan. I may speak as I choose and even disagree with islam. If you don't like it: too bad.

I have made my political views clearly, I am only against public apostasy from Islam.

I notice you didn't add the word "public" to a description of how you'd turn your own son over to the religious police if he converted; still, what you don't understand is that even support for the punishment of public apostacy only is monstrous and perverted.

I believe that when it is a challenge to the foundations and ideals of the state (subverting ideology of the State) there should be some consequences. Different cases depend differently on the punishment. Exile, Execution, and even forgiveness (if the crime in minimal) all are on the table. The citizens should know the law of living under an Islamic state, it is their own choice to break it willfully then they should expect to be punished.

It is an abundantly ridiculuous notion to assume that apostates deserve death to preserve the religious character of a nation. What if it is the will of the people that the character of the islamic state should change? What then? How can there ever be freedom in such a system? What you describe is religious fascism. I wonder too what happens to those who refuse to accept islam at the age of majority?

One need only look at the history of Islam, particularly the Khawariji to learn of the devastating effects such a thing will have on our society.

Please cite a valid reference. And what, moreover, should ancient history have to do with human rights? Or would the West then be justified in making war on islamic nations, given the history of islamic attitudes towards Western civilization? Or, instead, does only islamic history matter to you?

Non-Muslims however may practice freely their religions, convert to any religion they choose, assemble at their churches, temples, hold festivities, and repair their churches.

The latter in particular is an utter lie - Egypt only recently passed a very toothless law allowing it, one which is not expected to have any legal weight whatever. For a supposed legalist, you leave me in great doubt as to your abilities.

To completely understand this view from the Muslim side you must think as Muslims would think. The punishment for ruining or ending an innocent person's life in this life, is execution. A life for a life. What then would be the punishment of a person who ruins another's afterlife which is for eternity?

To completely understand this view from the no-muslim side you must think as non-muslims would think. Such people believe that islam is utterly false, and that Mohammed was a beligerant fraud. Believing in him would mean damnation for all time (or simple hypocrisy for a secularist). What penalty then would be the punishment of a person who ruins his or her own afterlife which is for eternity?

We do not expect the West to support us in this, but they have no right to interfere in our politics. If the majority of our people wish to rule by Islamic law, we will do so, without anyone else's approval.

Unfortunately, you have no way of knowing what the majority opinion is, since "undermining the islamic character of the state" means death; a punishment you support, by the way.

It is wrong to not allow a person to dress modesty if they chose, yet we have no right to force this change on you.

???? Who precisely is forcing a person not to dress modestly? The French? One nation in a sea. I disagree with the French decision - I think people should have the right to dress as they choose. I wonder if islamic nations would confer the same rights on women?

Just kidding. I know they don't. Moreover, islamic political pressure is assuredly being exerted on the French system. Financed from where, one might ask? Riyadh and Tehran would be a good bet; Algiers and Morocco another.

I am not against Christians giving aid, as a matter of fact I welcome this.
I am against the use of aid and food to force people who are in necessity to change their faith to obtain this aid, especially in a Non-Christian country. This is a very common tactic among American Evangelists to gain converts in the poor third world.

Then bring your proofs, if ye are truthful.

These are necessities but no one has the right to try to change a person's views due to their need of food and supplies.

To follow up on this interesting point - so excessive taxation of dhimmis would also be wrong then, if it had the effect of forcing their conversion to islam? Yes or no?

The rest was mere whining propaganda.

You view homosexuality as natural only because it has become acceptable in your society. Our view is homosexuality is artificial, and no man is born in a state of homosexuality

Your view, then, has been scientifically discredited. (Thanks for playing.) Many times. You are also required to explain the existence of homosexuality in the 'natural' world, since you presume its unnaturality.

Islamic states have different applications of these rules (Islamic view is not monolithic concerning this), but Non-Muslims in an Islamic State may worship, assemble, and have festivities as they like.

And may not convert others to their religion (making the field of discussion vastly unfair), and take their lives in their hands by even arguing religion with muslims in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. A simple accusation of "defaming the prophet" is enough to earn a severe penalty.

I doubt anyone (including known murderers) would consent to execution, even if they were at fault and deserved it.

And your position then is that the mere act of leaving islam and then being found out - this "publically" nonsense is also utterly discredited by the turning over of such converts to the religious authorities by family members, busybodies and nosy gits - is that they "deserve it". Small-minded wrangling over the legality of the act is exactly that: indicative of small minds at humble work.

As does the West.

We have a long way backwards to go, but we are not going there. We came from there.

An Islamic State does not exist as of now, however again it is your wish for Muslims to disregard their religion and its application of law (you are an athiest afterall).

Propaganda, spite and slander. He has not called for anyone to abandon their religion, and even you know it. Nor do I so call - yet, but in talking to you I am certainly starting to develop that opinion.

"Your Sustainer has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your lifetime, do not say to them a word of contempt nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility and say: My Sustainer! Bestow on them Your mercy, even as they cherished me in childhood." (17:23-24)

If a man leaves his religion, kill him. [Mohammed, as reported in al-Buhkari]

Respect for other human beings, family, strangers, and poor is the duty of every Muslim and every citizen under the Islamic State which is made to better the lives of all people it serves.

Unless they convert from state- and societally-mandated religion, or have the temerity to be homosexual, or repair their churches, or do anything else the authorities consider as subversive to the islamic character of the state.

That is called: fascism.

Prophet Geoff