Total posts: 1,201
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Born to it. I don't think any priest would consider my philosophy in accordance with the Apostle's Creed.
- What are your contentions against said Creed? What makes you hold on to Catholicism? What would change your mind or convince you otherwise?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Not much of what I hold dear spiritually meshes with monotheism.
- Are you actually a polytheist? Do you adhere to a religion? What is it that you hold dear?
So not much changes but I don't get to interact with people who aren't practice outside Christianity. It's always better to get info/ views from a practitioner.
- I'm Muslim. We can interact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- That would do it. Why are you a Catholic?
Created:
-->
@eventuality001
Quran 5 : 2121. “O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned for you, and do not turn back, lest you return as losers.”22. They said, “O Moses, there are tyrannical people in it; we will not enter it until they leave it. If they leave it, we will be entering.”24. They said, “O Moses, we will not enter it, ever, as long as they are in it. So go ahead, you and your Lord, and fight. We are staying right here.”26. Allah said: 'This land will now be forbidden to them for forty years and they will remain wandering about on the earth. Do not grieve over the condition of these transgressing people.
- What is the point of all this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Interesting question and I like a non-toxic religion forum post. However, I don’t think I have an answer for this one. My Christian beliefs have only been reinforced after a lot of thinking I’ve done.
- What is it that deep down makes you believe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I have become less of a nihilist.
- To be honest, I don't get a lot of what you usually say. Are you an atheist?
And see that it is reasonable to hypothesise a Universal purpose....A GOD PRINCIPLE....Not to be confused with A GOD.
- What's the difference?
Popular religion is just based off unscientific naivety and ideological misinformation. Science has long since been able to exceed the naivety of religion,
- What exactly makes you hold such opinions?
But remembering and transferring old data is both a blessing and a curse, allowing us to move intellectually forwards, whilst simultaneously holding us back.Though maybe this is not so bad, and serves a regulatory purpose.
- This is the part I don't get...
I subsequently hypothesise that the GOD PRINCIPLE is likely to be something technologically inspired rather than directly of human inspiration.Given how things currently stand, this would seem to conform to a logical evolutionary process. (Material evolution)
- The who wut wut?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Idk what exactly you mean by 'my culture' because you are assuming a few things here
- The one you grew up in?
but if you mean that is it part of Western democracies to accept and tolerate Islam, yes that is definitely part of them.They are almost infinitely more accepting of Islam than Islamic cultures are of them, for instance.It is actually very curious that they are expected to alter laws to protect Muslims from restriction and persecutionbut that Islamic nations would never do the same in reverse.The only Islamic culture to properly tolerate outsiders influencing its culture seems to be Dubai in the UAE and that's just out of pragmatism as it's expat-reliant in its economics. Even there, fasting for Ramadan and other things get enforced by law (but instead of the fast itself being mandated, you are allowed to not fast but need to do it privately etc)
- All these are good points to make in the debate. I wouldn't wanna spoil everything.
I have even quoted the Qur'an and Hadith themselves, it's you who chooses to ignore them and dismiss what I say as relevant.
- This never happened. I always address every single Quran verse or Hadith you (or another) bring up. The one doing the dismissing is usually yourself.
I am not interested in your approval anyway as you approving of my source has little impact on the source's validity.
- A Christian source on Islam is obviously not a reliable source...
- I don't know why you always sent me links you obviously have not checked, as they usually contradict your claims. These articles are about mistranslation in general, specifically mistranslation by Westerners of ideological texts by feminists/communists/liberals.... The last article is about early 17th century horrible mistranslations of the Quran by contemptuous Christians.
Thanks for your opinion of my agenda. I seem to know what I think and feel better than you do, though.
- It's not my opinion. It's the truth, which you keep failing to disprove.
What does him being a Salafi have to do with his relevance in Islam as one of its highest scholars and spokespeople at present, to the English speaking world?
- I'm a Sunni Muslim, I don't subscribe to Salafism, which is a sect founded two centuries ago by Ibn Abd Wahab, who taught all Sunnis are either disbelievers or innovators. So, excuse me if I have a fundamental disagreement with the guy. Also, Zakir Naik is not even a scholar of any sort, he is a preacher, albeit a very popular one. I don't generally assume a famous Christian preacher is a Biblical scholar!! – As to the actual highest Sunni scholars in the English speaking world, try Hamza Yusuf, Timothy Winter, Umar Faruq, Nuh Keller...etc. In case you don't know, Sunni Islam is the overwhelmingly predominant denomination of Islam in the world, & historically. It's the trend taught in all Muslim traditional schools across the Muslim world -with the exception of Gulf states (who have been salafisized), Iran & Oman (which are not Sunni) & some corners here & there in various Muslim countries, such as ISIS & its likes.
how is it either of those 2 things?
- Wut?
then the debate should be entitled Sharia vs Secularism because if you want to make it Islam vs, it should be Islam vs Atheism or vs Agnosticism. Secularism refers to the law of the land in theory and enforcement no longer being related to a particular faith and inherently leads to greater tolerance of non-native faiths and cultures.
- So, something like: Sharia Law vs. Secular Law, or Islamic Law vs. Secular Law? Any specific issues you wish to include or exclude? Any particular rules to adhere to?
Created:
-->
@rosends
I'm an orthodox rabbi. I have smicha from a kollel in Boro Park, Brooklyn. I think I speak for Jewish law and tradition a bit more than you who "taught Jews." Oh yeah, I'm also a teacher with a number of degrees, training and experience.
- An orthodox rabbi against orthodox views... I can tell just from engaging with you, you're not a real rabbi. You are not grounded in liberal arts, you don't speak with an understanding of rhetorics & logic in textual interpretation.
You definitely don't know Judaism and Jewish law better than I do. But do let your arrogance flag fly!
- Even if I did, my opinion doesn't matter. I'd rather put my trust into the REAL qualified Orthodox rabbis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I actually used to be a very typical accepting person when it came to Islam. I was not raised to dislike it whatsoever.
- Is that part of your culture?
It was actually by reading and listening to what both sides of the arguments said about Islam that I came to be horrified about the Hadith and Qur'an.
- That's doubtful. You have yet to quote a single reliable Muslim source about any Islam related thing you ever brought up.
It has also come to my attention that unbelievably, what I am horrified by is actually a watered down translation as many of the western copies of the Qur'an are altered texts without some of the more horrific lines.
- This is obviously nonsense. Countless versions of Quran translations are available in heaps in print & online. Do you have any examples of such horrific lines from the Quran?
So, if you were curious, my mind was changed regarding Islam due to genuinely listening and reading about it. I actually considered both sides of the argument fully and have come to know of the cultures from many inside sources and what they say.
- I have been engaging with you for a while, 'genuine' is the furthest thing from reality. In truth, you're a simple hater with no desire for understanding whatsoever. This isn't a bad thing per se, we all have our own biases. But it's a good start to admit it.
The preacher named Dr. Zakir Naik is a youtuber that I followed quite a bit.Nothing he said made me less skeptical about Islam, I noticed his habits of double-speak and deflection but he is so good at it and so knowledgable of the Qur'an and Bible that I was impressed regardless.
- I'm sure he impresses on the laity. But he doesn't know much of anything. Zakir Naik is salafi btw. Regardless, which of his statements was objectionable to you?
I have fully understood the Islamic side of the debate
- You can't possibly believe such a ridiculous thing...?!
but what I don't understand is why they don't just drop the religion and become more secular, rather than cling to their religion and try to redefine it in a more peaceful manner.
- Maybe because it is objectively superior to Secularism & is also objectively more peaceful. – Since you believe you understood the Islamic side of things, let's have a debate: Islam vs. Secularism. You're confident that Islam is so bad compared to Secularism, show us why that is the case. I'll let you pick whatever specific topics to include -or exclude- in that comparison (Islam vs. Secularism). What exactly would you want to compare between Islam & Secularism?
Created:
-->
@rosends
I'm not sure what you think you have been through before and what threshold you think was established and met in some phantom definition of "insane" that you like to use. But if you knew Jewish law, then you would know that your statement is wrong. Insisting that I would do something because of your very limited understanding of what being a Jew at any time really means just shows off that ignorance.
- You have it backwards. Your wishful thinking & fantasies do not speak for the Jewish Tradition & the rabbis. I taught Jews before, & I know your kind -all whims. I know real rabbis & their positions. Spare us your fake news. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
Feel free to speak for others because you arrogantly think you know other cultures and cultural rules better than members of that culture, if that floats your boat.
- Indeed I do. Most people are ignorant, even about their history & faith. I have yet to meet someone on this Forum who knows Western History & Thought better than I do.
Created:
Posted in:
- I've been arguing with you lot about faith, mostly Islam, for a while now. I'm curious, have any of you changed your mind or revised your views about the religion or any topic regarding Islam after our exchanges. If so, what topic? Why? Or why not?
- Also, what other faith related views have you discarded or adopted in general during your time on this Forum? & why?
- What factors contribute most to your evolving opinions? Emotional? Intellectual? Popular?...
Created:
how about you remind me . I'm pretty sure you didn't explain why didn't muhammad married a 9 years old kid back when he was with khadijah
- Refer to my previous comment: Khadija might have been wealthy, but as soon as the beloved Prophet (pbuh) started his mission in his 40s his tribe (Quraysh) cut all commercial ties with him, he lost all his wealth. Him & his followers were persecuted, tortured, pillaged, starved & some even killed by Quraysh. Shortly before her death when he was 47, his clan & supporters were under a 3-year blockade, with no access to commodities or food. They had to eat grass & bugs to survive, many died. There was never any money or gold to be dug. After her death he married again for companionship & someone to take care of his children, she was 30 years older! He (pbuh) lived in a square mud hut 10 feet sides for the rest of his life. It's where he was buried, & his resting place today.
- How about that debate though? If you dare, let's start a new Forum thread to discuss formal debates about all these topics you keep bringing up.
Created:
-->
@rosends
Wow, you're magic. Now tell me how many fingers I'm holding up.
- Dude, we've been through this before. We've already established you're insane. Even if I show you the bright sun in the sky you'll deny it. As to sodomy, yes if you were a Jew during Old Testament times you would kill sodomites. Heck, you would do that even a century or two ago. Spare us your fantasies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Incel-chud
- This doesn't seem like a serious question, but I'll put in my two cents. Western History is quite difficult to discern since the rise of the press & mass media with Colonial period. There are generally three discernible narratives in any given conflict, only one is real. The internal propaganda narrative, aimed at own people & allies; the external propaganda narrative, aimed at enemies; & then the truth. In the case of European Jews, their time in the continent was running out since the nationalist & racist supremacist ideologies replaced religious identity in European countries late 19th century & early 20th century. They simply could be not tolerated to live with other natives, as they were subject to extreme suspicion. A jew was seen as Jewish first before being French or German or British, thus could not be trusted with loyalty to the state. This engendered the rise of Zionism, a movement to save -or get rid of (depending on which side of the power struggle you're on)- European Jews & establish a territory for them to serve Colonial interests. Although this was popular among the Colonial elite, it did not catch much attention among the Jewish people in Europe. They felt unfairly judged & that they could prove themselves loyal to their countries. Also, they did not wish to leave their homes in the continent to go live elsewhere, among other people & other cultures they are not used to. However, these ideas gain attraction as time goes by while Europe grows more & more racist. Some nations decided to get rid of the Jews by putting them in pogroms (like Russia), while others opted to enact the Zionist project, chiefly Britain. That is to remove Jews from Europe & put them elsewhere. Hence, the Mandate of Palestine & the Balfour Declaration, negotiated with Rothschild. This proved unsuccessful at first, very few Jews were incentivized enough to leave. Only few thousands would migrate to Ottoman Palestine. After three consecutive losses to take Palestine from the Ottomans, Britain resorted to deception. They promised the Levant & Arabia to the sharifian dynasty of Mecca & supported their rebellion against the Ottomans, only to see that promise disappear into thin air. Palestine was taken & Arabia was instead given to the Saudis. Despite that, Jewish migration to Palestine was not sufficient to establish a Jewish nation. – Then comes Hitler. Lo & behold! Hundreds of thousands of Jews running from Nazi rule see themselves blocked from going to any western country, including Britain & the US. Their only affordable destination in the promised Jewish land in Palestine. The reason why the Rothschilds & so many Jews supported Hitler was not that he was on their side, it is simply because they shared a common goal, that is Zion. The more persecution European Jews face under Hitler, the more incentivized they are to leave the continent & settle in Palestine. Zionists, wether Jewish (like Ben-Gurion) or Colonial (like Churchill) all saw Hitler as the catalyst of the Zionist Colonial project. Hence, they did not mind what he was doing to his Jews & those of neighbors for years, until he made the mistake of attacking them too.
- Where is the internal propaganda is all of this? Hitler's treatment of the Jews was used as a propaganda tool by the Allies to showcase his evil & madness & justify their actions against the Germans, even though it was beneficial for their Zionist project in Palestine. These Colonial powers have themselves committed far worse crimes than Hitler has for much extended periods of time. Hitler's racism was not an aberration, it was the norm -though picked the wrong targets to exclude.
Created:
- Buddy, we've been through this exact nonsense before. You literally copy/pasted your previous posts to recycle them again, hoping people will forget. What I keep wondering, however, is why do you refuse to debate these topics since you clearly have so much to say?
Created:
-->
@rosends
No, I wouldn't. Did you have a followup question?
- Yes, you would. Period.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
So what?
- Don't bother with whatever he says, he is just recycling his lies. You're Chinese right? What do you think of the eulogy written by Hongwu Emperor (founder of the Ming Dynasty) about the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh):
The universe began with the heavenly tablet recording his name.
The religion-delivering great sage, born in the western realm.
Conferring and receiving heavenly scripture in thirty parts, universally transforming all created beings.
Master of the trillion rulers, leader of the ten thousand sages.
Assisted by destiny, protector of the community.
In each of the five prayers, he silently supplicates for their total well-being.
His intention is that Allah should remember the needy.
Deliver them from tribulations to safety, Knower of the unseen.
Exalted above every soul and spirit, free from any blameworthy deeds.
A mercy to all of the worlds, whose path is preeminent for all time.
Renouncing spiritual ignorance; returning to The One — that is the religion called Islam.
Muhammad is the most noble sage.
The Quran was written back then when this was acceptable.
- It is still acceptable, just not in wedlock. Age of consent laws are not about sexual majority, they are about statutory rape, i.e. rules apply to sexual relations between those below & above that age. In the US, for instance, out of 22 million teens (17 & less) & pre-teens (as young as 8) who are in a sexual relationship, only 600 thousands are in matrimony. Age of consent changes in time & place. Just across the border from the US, it's 12 in Mexico. A century ago it was as low as 7 & 10 in most US states. – It is not that sexual relations amongst young people became unacceptable, for those are completely fine -most teens by 17 in the US (or Europe) would've already had a sexual partner. It is rather that early marriage became stigmatized. – This is not an issue in much of the rest of the world, as early marriages are common, instead of out of wedlock sexual relations.
If it wasn't acceptable, the faith would have drained out long ago. Let's just let the fundamental ideas pass, the outdated ones sifted through, and move on. We get to decide which ones are applicable or not, and it would be best if we debate out if this idea is outdated or not, instead of questioning what someone did in the past (especially in a time period when it is probably acceptable).
- Indeed. Christians just hate Islam (not all of them), so they will stick to anything to insult our beloved Prophet (pbuh). Aisha's marriage is one of them, even though that was a blessed union based on love. She was his best-friend's daughter, the marriage just brought the families closer. They both were devoutly committed to each-other. She used to call him "my beloved" as did he. He died on her lap, & was buried in her room. In his death bed he said to Aisha "My death is alleviated for I have seen you with me in Paradise”. This was a story of true love, unlike the sexual infatuation prominent in the West.
I am no expert but Muhammad didn't make people of all time periods marry more than one wife.
- The beloved Muhammed (pbuh) instituted Family & Marital Law, though he did not mandate Muslims to do as he did. He established mutual consent in marriage, prenuptial contract, & equity in rights. He enjoined education & religious devotion on both men & women. He guaranteed women inheritance & property rights independent from their husbands, right to dower & expenses, including accommodation, sustenance, furniture, clothing, & health. He granted both men & women the right to initiate divorce & seek reconciliation. He prohibited extra-marital sex (fornication & adultery) & limited polygamy to 4 wives max. He also accorded mothers sole custody of children until the age of 2 & prior custody until 7, alimony until the age of 2, & state security until 7. & for widows, one year of expenses...etc.
- As to polygamy, he (pbuh) is an example for all peoples of all times. Hence, the diversity of his marriages. He stayed loyal with his first wife (Khadija) until her death, despite this being against the customs of the time, exemplifying monogamy. He also married another 12 women across all age groups, from 10 (Aisha) to 80 (Sawda) -some were younger than him some older (up to 30 years older). His wives were from different races: Arab, Jew, Copt & Black. Also, with the exception of Aisha (virgin), all his other wives were either widowed or divorcees. They came from different socioeconomic classes, some wealthy (like Khadija), some daughters of chiefs, & some even destitute. His marriages were four types: 1. Family marriage: from which he had all his daughters, 2. Affinity marriages: he married the daughters of his closest friends (Aisha & Hafsa) & married his daughters to them, all of whom (Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Ali) became his successors, 3. Alliance marriages: with daughters of leaders of other tribes to establish alliances, & 4. Charity marriages, destitute widows or divorcees who needed care, such as Sawda & Rayhana.
Exactly. In my opinion, this is an outdated idea and should not be actively endorsed. Just look at it as a part of history.
- Are you referring to early marriages or polygamy? Polygamy is a Christian ideal which they forced on other cultures & peoples during Colonialism, albeit a false ideal. In reality, having multiple relationships was common & still is among their men. Only, one is official & gets all the rights, while other extra-marital relationships get none. Where is the justice in this? On what ground do you think polygamy is outdated? (the practice was until very recently common in your culture as well). – As to early marriages, why do you believe out-of-wedlock sexual relationships among child teens & preteens are good but early marriages are outdated?
He apparently is. Then again, Jefferson is also a slave owner.
- That moron is spouting nonsense & recycling his hate after being proven wrong again & again. Khadija might have been wealthy, but as soon as the beloved Prophet (pbuh) started his mission in his 40s his tribe (Quraysh) cut all commercial ties with him, he lost all his wealth. Him & his followers were persecuted, tortured, pillaged, starved & some even killed by Quraysh. Shortly before her death when he was 47, his clan & supporters were under a 3-year blockade, with no access to commodities or food. They had to eat grass & bugs to survive, many died. There was never any money or gold to be dug. After her death he married again for companionship & someone to take care of his children, she was 30 years older! He (pbuh) lived in a square mud hut 10 feet sides for the rest of his life. It's where he was buried, & his resting place today. – As to slavery, the beloved Prophet (pbuh) abolished slavery completely (but in name), he himself freed 60 slaves -while the wealthier of his companions each freed thousands. Ibn Awf is reported to have freed 30,000 slaves.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
And the non west will always be envious of the West. Not of their value systems but of their wealth and prosperity. And of their authority and power in the world.
- You must realize this is also a lie. "They envy us" has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces of propaganda spread in your countries. You want to know the general impression of the rest of the world about the West? It's grievance. Virtually every country has suffered greatly from Western aggression & exploitation, of the cruelest degree. Grievances die hard. Also, this isn't the case anymore.
And of their authority and power in the world.
- Sometimes it's good to get out of one's own bubble & try to see the world from someone else's perspective. The average westerner's view on history is to run from the "dark" past towards a more & prosperous progressive future, for indeed Europe comes from a dark past into a glorious future. This is not the memory of most other peoples in the world, which are generally nostalgic about their glorious pasts. Muslims, for instance, dominated the economic, political, scientific, literary, artistic, commercial, military & technological global spheres for TEN centuries. The combined GDP of Muslim states from the 8th century until the 18th century was more than 50% global share, sometimes beyond 70%. Until the 1700s, the GDP of the Ottoman empire alone was larger or equivalent to the rest of Europe combined, that of the Mughal empire was much larger. In per capita terms then, Ottoman's income was 5 times higher than France's. Further back in the past, Europe's weight in the world was virtually non-existent. 11th century Britain had a smaller economy than a single province of Sicily. Before that, Andalusia's economy (Muslim Spain) was several times the rest of Europe combined. A comparison between 13th century France & Mali, Timbuktu's university had 25k students & 1 million books, Paris's Sorbonne had less than 1700 books. – This is also true for China, which controlled between a fifth & a third of global economy & trade...etc.
The non-west may well not desire the wealth or prosperity
- If you mean western style exploitation & pillaging, then I agree. However, the world is going back to its pre-19th century state of affairs. From post-WWII to last year, Western share of global real GDP dropped from 60% to less than a third, while the Islamic world's share (OIC countries) increased from 9% to a sixth, & rising at 5 times the rate; China's real GDP share went from about 5% after the war to over a fifth today -despite all the western interference & invasions & sanctions against these countries, & also in spite of the insane privileges the US & Europe have due to their reserve currencies, control of global trade & brain drain. On average, an American has an extra $100k of free money (without labour) just because the USD is a reserve currency. This is obviously not real prosperity, it's theft & it's unsustainable.
- but it does cause them to question their own faith. And even if it does not cause the oldies to question their faith - the youngsters are influenced and are attracted to the West and its attractions.
- This will always be true for some. 'The dominated are ever infatuated with emulating the dominator' Ibn Khaldun. Western dominion, however, is both powerful & oppressive. Power naturally induces submission, while Oppression induces resistance & retaliation. It's human nature to protest injustice. Hence, the conflicting reactions towards the West, some will submit & emulate, while others will protest & retaliate -depending on which side of power or oppression triumphs. As to the "youngsters", those are a small minority. Even here in Turkey, one of the most secular Muslim countries, only a fifth of the population are secularists, largely due to the western education they receive.
For the record, this applies to many Christian families as well. Many Christian Family despise the materialism and value system of the West and have reverted to home-schooling and separating themselves from the mass media of the West.
- Islam is not anti-wealth, it's anti-greed & exploitation. There is nothing wrong with being rich; the poor can also be greedy.
It is not a matter of indoctrination or no indoctrination - but rather whose indoctrination. The West indoctrinates the non-west and the non-west indoctrinates the West - we all do it. We would not call it this. We would prefer to say we are educating our people or other people with the truth. But whose truth?
- This is false. Parents should educate their children, not the state. In the West, all children are systematically & compulsorily indoctrinated into the liberal secular worldview without chance of alternative. This is worse than even the worst periods of Church domination of Europe. That is the difference between great fancy labels such as "freedom of thought" & "freedom of religion" & the actual reality. In truth, there has never been a more totalitarian state in Human History than the western modern nation-state. A state that is into everybody's business in everything.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes she has been. Sentenced is not the same as having been carried out. She is still in the waiting position - all the different appeals etc and confirmation from the courts have to be conducted first.
- It doesn't matter how many times you keep saying it, the facts in the ground are otherwise. Moving on.
Of course it makes sense. She is in prison right now - awaiting for her sentence to be completed. That is how it works in every legal system around the world. Even if the death penalty is determined to scare her - it is still the case.
- You are literally contradicting your previous comment. Cool!
Yes - maximum penalties but not death.
- So, same as Pakistan.
If someone were charged the likely penalty would be a good behavior bond without conviction
- Wishful thinking. Stick to the facts.
Blasphemy is not the same thing as insulting others. It is quite a different law - although somewhat related.
- You're right, hence the links about *blasphemy*. No need for equivocation. Blasphemy is the denigration or violation of sanctities & sensibilities or a people. Although they overlap, some blasphemy is not hate speech & some hate speech is not blasphemy. The aforementioned Holocaust denial is blasphemy, not hate speech at all. Saying "let's kill Muslims" is hate speech, though not blasphemy. Denigrating the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is blasphemy & also hate speech, for it incites hate. – Without blasphemy laws, a Hindu denigrating the beloved Prophet (pbuh) in Pakistan will result in him being lynched or his temple being destroyed the next day. Actions have consequences, if I insult your mother, there is a chance I'll be hospitalized for it, regardless of the legality of it. Denigrating the sanctities of others will result in some of them retaliating regardless of risks, unless they know the law will take care of it. – Similar things could be argued for Nazi advocacy in Germany, or "nigger" calling in the US.
On the other hand you want to say it is under that category because it is the way you see it. Same fallacy.
- False. I argue from definition, you argue from labels. You remind me of a Chinese restaurant in Paris I once went to. They had "Halal" labels on pork chops. LOL! Labels =/= meanings.
I don't consider blasphemy to be simply a racist or insult. It has to be directed towards a religion or religious deity or something that is meant to insult either one.
- Who says blasphemy is identical to hate speech?! Blasphemy relates to people's sanctities & high sensitivities, which are different from one nation to another. The importance of Christianity may have been replaced with other ideals & conditions in the various western countries, that doesn't mean blasphemy is no more; rather new different boundaries.
Not at all. I have distinguished between blasphemy and insults and racist comments.
- You haven't. You've literally designated things which are exclusively blasphemy, such as Holocaust denial, as insults & racist... Holocaust denying may be done in racist intent, but it is not itself racist or hate speech. Labeling Holocaust denial or Israel criticism as "anti-semitic" is just that, labels.
I have distinguished between maximum and minimum penalties. You should really think more about this before you simply post another comment.
- And...?! Maximum & minimum penalties are largely arbitrary. The point is the criminalization itself. You could get 15 years in prison for a crime in one state, & none right across to the next state or next county. That said, if Austria had the same level of unrest & instability as Pakistan does, it would definitely raise its 20 years of prison sentence to death penalty. We see in the US as well, at the height of the Cold War, communist advocacy was criminalized, sometimes punishable up to death penalty.
Never been to Pakistan - I have to Bangladesh. Perhaps I have been misled by the newspapers. Yet I have had missionary friends in Pakistan who testify to much intolerance.
- From missionaries...? I'm not surprised. Missionaries are extremely despised in the Muslim world, unless in public forums & designated areas. – I once met a couple of missionaries on a train, I asked them how do you know your religion is true. One of them held the Bible to his heart & said "faith" with a big smile on his face. I admire the devotion, but that wasn't a very successful response for someone there to proselytize. – But they do know how to get attention. Another time I was with a friend, this group of missionary pretty girls came to argue with us. I intellectually destroyed them, but my friend was head over heals over one of them. He even started following her around... Do visit Pakistan though, the most real & safe place you could wish for.
I understand this - I never said it was only to Christian faith. Australia historically has been a Christian nation. Yet we have turned secular at least in policy and practice.
- Hence boundaries of blasphemy are different.
It is multicultural. And it is liberal secular. It is not polytheistic. Interestingly, only Western nations are multicultural.
- False. By now you should realize that we do not subscribe to the labels they indoctrinate you into. Western nations are strictly the least multi-cultural in History. As I said, what you intend by multi-cultural is superficial diversity. As long as the appearance is different, skin-color, attire, gender, rites... then it's diverse. In reality, however, the Western Secular Liberal system is deeply anti-diversity. It does not allow for any minority or challenging culture or worldview in any real sense, i.e. in any systemic institution whatsoever, be it in legislation, administration, military, criminal code, civil matters, education, academia, research, mainstream media, intelligence...etc. In time, after few generations, all minority languages, cultures, values, customs, faiths... annihilated into the 'melting pot'. – Contrast this to Islamic rule, which is a community-based rule. Each community can live in their own territories, practice their own religious morality, issue their own rulings, establish their own courts, legislate their own laws, enact their own local policies, elect their own leaders, run their own budges; while preserving their own languages & culture, whence they can establish their own schools & education systems. None of this is even remotely granted in the "multicultural" West. LMAO!
Sorry - you are incorrect. In Australia - there may be some Islamphobic people - but not generally. We are quite tolerant of Islam and actively promote it - especially the Greens - and the Woke left who are trying to promote what they call tolerance - against the Christian religions. Come out to the country towns - they are very happy to set up a Mosque or a Hindu temple - but if a church wants to plant a new church - large hurdles and finally not approved. No one wants to offend the other faiths and risk getting canceled. We have a law that says no knives at school. A hindu wore a ceremonial knife to school attacked another child. He was allowed to keep his knife and was not prosecuted. But a christian boy prayed with another christian child at school- he was sent home and then expelled.
- You're looking in the wrong place. The acceptance of Islam among some does not speak for the rest. The acceptance of China amongst some Australians does not entail there is overall favorability. According to a 2019 poll, "51% of Australians had unfavourable sentiments towards Islam, and only 10% looked upon the religion positively, making Australia more negative than 17 of the other 22 countries surveyed. In fact, 37% of people said they were “very unfavourable”– the most negative response available."
nonsense. You seem to be totally lost in your own little world. None of my Muslim acquaintances would agree with you.
- Yet, it is a fact. Maybe you belong a relatively moderate community.
I'm no fan of pure democracy. But what is the alternative?
- Pretty much every other thing is better than democracy. The "it's bad but it's the best we got" is the worst propaganda piece I've seen. In truth, western countries themselves did not get rich & successful because of this shit system, democracy happened after the fact. Most were imperialist dictatorships or monarchies or military republics. The reason the West loves to promote democracy elsewhere, is to make other countries vulnerable to western influence & interference. A state run by mob-rule is the easiest to control, just a little propaganda & bribery, play on people's fears & you could have anybody take lead -which a country like the US can easily afford to fund, as is the case. This is impossible in monarchies or native dictatorships. A native dictator with popular support (not a puppet leader) seeks to develop his country & its military at any cost to defend his rule from foreign influence. That is why the only way the US can remove them is through military intervention or extreme sanctions, as they used to do against literally every disobedient leader who dares act out against their hegemony. Thankfully, they can't act with such impunity anymore.
Forgive me for not agreeing with you. My point is Pakistan is not pretending to be a Western nation with Western Values.
- That's irrelevant to the issue of blasphemy. & it does not change the fact that a Muslim has a lot more freedom of speech in Pakistan than any western country. What you want from "freedom of speech" is the kind that agrees with your worldview & political interests.
I also think you have a different view of free speech than I do.
- Yes, you have a fantasized view of 'free-speech' that has no real substance, from so much indoctrination & propaganda. In truth, there is virtually no real free-speech in the Western system, compared to the Islamic system. Under Islamic rule, freedom of participation & exchange of challenging ideas & non-Muslim worldview was granted to minorities in the academic & political sphere, while propaganda & proselytization in public sphere was banned, where it’s easy to prey on weak-minded & impressionable people. Under Secular Liberal rule, participation & exchange of non-secular non-liberal non-western worldviewes are completely banned from any minority in the academic & political sphere, while freedom of speech is granted to propaganda & proselytization in the public sphere, where ideas have virtually no impact on the Thought & Politics of the nation. – Hence, no real freedom of speech is actually granted in any western country. Lemme ask you, can a Muslim scholar teach Sharia in an Australian university?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
This is not a red herring whatsoever. You are calling social services 'abduction and indoctrination'.
- Firstly, it is not me who's calling them that. It is the Nordic Committee for Human Rights that does, if you ever bothered to check their report which I linked. They refer to nordic social services as "child care and abduction industry". You ask for sources, yet you dismiss them when brought up. Secondly, forcibly removing children from their parents is, by definition, abduction. This isn't a label, it's a definition. Lastly, you have yet to address absolutely anything I said. You haven't even attempted to defend these heinous abductions.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You are making things up about France etc.
- It's not because you don't like that it becomes untrue. Everything I said is a FACT, France is my second country. Good luck disproving anything I said. Actually, these types of practices are common in the West, to higher or lesser degrees -with the exception of few (such as the United States).
At this point I don't even know what to argue. I also can't believe that you are defending what China did to the Uyghurs.
- It probably looks like that to you because how bad France is, that it seems like I'm defending China. Also, I do not believe western reports about China's practices in Xinjiang at all, or Hong Kong. Or, for that matter, any western reports about any enemy country, be it Russia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, or any other country. We know they are always lying, this case is no different.
- Ask yourself, why has every single Muslim country stood with China on the Xinjiang issue, including the Turkic nations? Turkey is starting a war with Russia over Crimea because of the Tatars there, a Turkic people. Erdogan went to war against Armenia who was backed by Russia to support Azeris...etc...etc. Yet, when it came to Uyghur Erdogan & his foreign minister says they are in collaboration with China over the issue. You know why? Because western claims on Uyghur "genocide" is just another propaganda tactic to undermine China, a rising superpower, just like they do with any country they consider an enemy, including Turkey itself. – The West supports separatists literally in every country in the world. In Turkey, it's the PKK (a terrorist Kurdish organization). In China. it's the separatist Uyghurs, Hong Kong & the anti-China Taiwanese. That, to cause instability in these countries, use any crack down against these separatists as an excuse for human rights violations & mostly to have a leverage against these countries for political pressure. – Why don't you support separatists in Western countries? The Basques in France, the Catalonians in Spain, the Bavarians in Germany...etc. – Maybe I'll start a debate over wether this "genocide" is happening or not.
Your stance is just bitterness and anger leading to lies.
- Ad hominem. You're welcome to show where are these lies, which I guarantee you you can't, because all is fact. Ignorance of these facts does not warrant you to deny them. LOL!
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes, she has been sentenced to death.
- No.
She will sit in prison until she is released or until the sentence is carried out. The 20 years of prison was in addition to the death penalty.
- No. Lmao! That doesn't even make sense. Death penalty is never actually implemented in blasphemy cases, which are generally dismissed after a while with repentance from the perpetrator. The death penalty is there to scare the shit out of people not to attempt insulting the beloved Prophet (pbuh), otherwise the safety of minorities in the country will be endangered, such as the case of Muslims in India.
Not in a European country, you won't.
- Yes you will.
Nor in Australia.
- Let's see:
- Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act: "A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons."
- Western Australia's Criminal Code: "Any person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, by which the person intends to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years."
Blasphemy is still a charge in many Western Countries - but no one is ever charged with it. And many jurisdictions are discussing removing it from their books.
- You just love saying things don't you! Not because things came out of your mouth does that make them true...
I am not sure what you are talking about - do you have a link? But insulting a black family is not blasphemy.
- You seem to want to say racial derogation is not under the category of blasphemy, because it's not designated as such in some countries. That's a fallacy. The merit is not in the label, it's in the content itself. Not because you chose to give it a different name, does that absolve you from the charge. LOL!
It seems unlikely in a Western Court that some one would get 15 years just for insulting someone - even if it is done with racist intent. Still, I am happy to be shown wrong. Where is the link to this case?
Anti-semitic slurs and holocaust denial is racist. In places like Germany and France or even Israel these charges would be more aggravating than in most Western nations. 15 years would also be the maximum penalty - not the minimium.
- You're all over the place. Which is it?
For the record, I think blasphemy is a serious matter. Nevertheless, it depends on what country you are in and how the general public perceives it that ought to considered. I would think in a country like Pakistan - that it would aggravating to blaspheme against their predominant religion. If Pakistan was promoting itself as a tolerant country or a multi-cultural nation - it would be silly to have such a law - but it is not its policy or its intent.
- How you ever been there? Pakistan is in effect much more tolerant & hospitable than most Western countries, if not all. Derogating others & denigrating their sanctities, such is the case in the West, is the opposite of tolerance.
Most of the country - 98% according to this article are Muslim. Other people in the nation - ought to respect to some degree the majority view. They don't have to agree. But to get frustrated because it applies its own law is a bit precious.
- Indeed, agreed.
In Australia we have blasphemy laws - never used.
- Contrary to your wishful thinking, any profanity against sacred or sensitive things for a people is blasphemy. It doesn't have to be profanity against the Christian faith. What is sacred or sensitive to Pakistanis is not the same as such in Germany, or Australia. Each nation has its own cultural & historical conditions from which such boundaries are set.
Our country might still have a majority of Christians - yet the nation is not promoted as a Christian nation - but as a secular and multi-cultural one.
- No. It's not multicultural at all. It's Liberal Secular, unless you mean by 'multi-cultural' superficial diversity, such as skin color & attire & rites & such, as long as said diversity does not affect any systemic institution of the country; namely, law, administration, justice, education, academia...etc.
In fact - Christianity is pretty much the only religion or worldview that is permitted to be criticized without repercussion - with the justification that they are the majority or have been pretty horrible in the past and that they deserve any ridicule they receive now.
- This is total BS, especially in Australia. I don't think I've seen a more Islamophobic country in the Anglosphere than Australia. Christianity in the West is not really criticized as Islam is, for the former is the default cultural religion, while the later is the time-immemorial enemy religion. The Christian faith is pretty well understood & the overwhelming sentiment about its founder -Christ- & its ideals are very positive -never vilified or demonized at any noticeable degree. The opposite is the case for public sentiment about Islam, even if in truth the contrary is the case. – In fact, & in the same way, Islam is constantly criticized by all sorts of modernist groups in the Arab & Muslim world, by secularist, liberals, nationalists, atheists, even christians...
If someone criticized the Muslim religion here or the Hindu religion they may well be canceled for being intolerant. Yet Christians if they suggest we want to have a nativity scene at Christmas time - get told to shut up and stop being tiring. Of course the law is still the case that if someone came into a church and disrupted it - it is a criminal offence. I am not sure that anyone would really care- - but it is a criminal offence.
- I'm more familiar with Australian news than you might've hoped. Australia is the country with the most anti-Islamic in the anglophone world.
For someone to be sentenced to death in a Muslim Country for disrespecting Muslim ideals is to be expected. Pakistan is not pretending to be a democracy.
- Despite my vehement dislike of the tribal system that is democracy, Pakistan is actually a democracy, sadly!
It is not pretending to be a safe haven for the woke left. It is not pretending to agree with free speech. It is very clear on its laws.
- There is fare more free speech in Pakistan for a Muslim than in any western country. I could say a 100 things which would get me in serious trouble in western countries, yet nobody would care about in Pakistan. Drop this "free speech" nonsense. No state allows speech which undermines it, by design, else self-destruction. I can't understand why westerners don't get that this type of propaganda does not work with the rest of the World.
They are not the same as Western Laws - so for Western People to be upset is simply intolerant and inconsistent.
- The West will always be upset about how others conduct their business if doesn't fit with their current feelings, which they think are absolute universals. That, since the time when they had virtually no rights & all violence. The 19th century Ottomans had religious freedom, legal pluralism, rights of property, divorce, education for women, animal rights, of which Europe had none, yet that didn't stop them from being upset & critical. This is part of the very Western mentality & thought paradigm, that's how they justify themselves, & hence their crimes instigated against "evil" & "lesser" others . This mentality is sick & needs to disappear.
It seems to me that those in the West want to be considered tolerant of everyone - but this only really consists of those that agree with them.
- Absolutely agreed. Well said.
Personally, despite the fact that I disagree totally with the legal system in Pakistan and its Sharia law - I think that as a sovereign nation it has the prerogative to determine for itself how it legislates morality, the law and regulates its people. I also think it is petty for the West to criticize it by measuring its own self against Pakistan.
- You're saying very sensible things.
There is a place to compare and contrast legal systems and to analyze the same - but it is necessary to provide your basis for the criticism that arises when it arises against a culture. The death penalty for instance is neither good nor bad. It is a punishment that a country - may impose and EVERY country does in some form or another - even those opposed to it. Yet - why is it ok in America to put someone to death for theft or murder and not ok to do it in Pakistan for blasphemy. Each country has laws that reflect its personality. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or incorrect about sentencing someone to death for blasphemy. Of course for an atheist culture -it seems superstitious and dumb. Of course for a culture that values free speech above respect for religion - it will seem nonsensical and even undemocratic.
- Care to compare & contrast legal systems? Without the indoctrination & propaganda, & the "I'm strong therefore I'm right".
Yet there is nothing intrinsically wrong about making such a law that reflects where the majority of people in a culture stand. Nor is there anything intrinsically wrong with such a law reflecting ONE dictator in a country. For it to be intrinsically wrong - one would need to provide a basis for determining right and wrong - perhaps that everyone agrees with - not just democratically minded woke Lefties.
- Indeed. Though, you're speaking of customary laws, but this does not apply to natural & divine laws. Democracy is shit system, it's how tribes used to decide matters in the past. Great civilizations, such as the great Persian empires or the Roman empire or the Chinese empires or the Arab & Turkic empires after them, do not prescribe to this primitive nonsense.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Can you please give examples of this
- Sure. In France, it is compulsory for children 3 years of age to attend public school (home schooling is banned), to be subject to the systematic indoctrination into French culture & "values", such as democracy, secularism, liberalism, LGBT propaganda, sexual freedom, gender theory from very young age. Any attempt from parents to dissuade children from this debauchery, such as to teach your children gender segregation or biological genders or chastity or any form of religious primacy, or any failure to show up in school is punishable by law. The punishment ranges from prison sentence, to abduction of your children up to deportation. – If we believe western reports on China's treatment of the Uyghur, which I know for a fact are lies. According to these reports, China -allegedly- takes Uyghur adults suspect of harboring separatist views into training camps to be indoctrinated into Chinese & communist views & taught Chinese language & vocational skills, who are then recruited into various factories in Xinjiang in -allegedly- forced labour.
and compare?
- Let's see... If we suppose China actually does what the West says it does:
- China -allegedly- abduct adults. France factually abducts literally babies, to insure perfect indoctrination.
- China's campaign is aimed at a single ethnic group among 10 Muslim ethnic groups (& 56 total minority groups). France's campaign is aimed at literally all minorities, including all Muslims.
- China takes those who are suspect of harboring separatist views (according to them), from a people known for a century old separatist movement, which often resulted in conflict. France takes innocent babies & children.
- China conducts this campaign in designated training camps, leaving public schools & universities unaffected. France conducts this disgusting campaign in f*cking public schools!
- China's indoctrination is largely political & about allegiance to the state, they don't care about anything else. France's indoctrination is totalitarian, touching even on personal choices, sexual practices & religious beliefs. They even organize boyfriend-girlfriend sessions for little kids or make them cross-dress, against which a parent may not protest.
- China does not prevent these adults from receiving alternative education from family or others. France punishes any attempt to alternative education.
- China's education in these camps lasts a short amount of time, months or a year a most. France's compulsory education lasts 15 years, until the age 18. In fact, it is illegal for a Muslim girl below 18 to wear the Hijab in school or in public (but she can have sex with an adult at 15).
- China's Uyghur in these camps know they are being indoctrinated, as they are told. France's children are told they are being saved.
- China's other Muslim ethic groups (such as the Hui, Khazakh, Tatar...) or Uyghur residing outside Xinjiang are not subject to this training. France's Muslims all are.
- China's education camps actually provide opportunities for the graduates, the ability to work anywhere in China (since they learn Chinese) & a guaranteed job afterwords. France's indoctrination camps, aka schools, only goals is indoctrination itself.
- China is doing this for three necessary reasons, to combat actual militant separatism, to integrate the non-Hans into the wider Chinese nation (hence teaching Chinese), & to create a native working force in Xinjiang (hence the vocational training), as the main region for three essential industries in the country: Cotton industry, Oil industry & Solar industry. France is doing these thing simply to remove Islam & other traditional worldviwes from its country, as there is no real separatism & all minority children speak French anyways.
Okay, and do you think this is a bad thing?
- You skipped this part: "Beyond the systematic removal of their culture culture, language & history, they were also subject to abuse, torture, rape, forced labor, starvation, & often used as lab rats".
If we read your link, the school operated in 1901 and around that time, not past the 1990s, please provide evidence of this.
- Just admit you didn't read the article: "Parental visits were further restricted by the use of a pass system designed to confine Indigenous peoples to reserves. The last federally-funded residential school, Kivalliq Hall in Rankin Inlet, closed in 1997."
Can you explain how abused children are protected from their abusive parents in Islamic cultures?
- LOL! Yeah, that's not going to work. Nice red-herring. Why don't you start by addressing these crimes your countries perpetrated against their own children instead of evading the issue at every turn.
You are calling any intervention 'abduction' is this correct?
- Forcibly removing children from their parents or coercing them away is, by definition, abduction.
It is indeed bad that child labour happened in Switzerland until the 1960s, not 1980s.
- It's not child labour buddy, it's child abduction & slavery! & it did indeed last until the 1980s: "In a practice that lasted in Switzerland until 1981". In reality, it lasted until 2010s, because these children were never brought back to their families or compensated for their suffering until 2014.
I am confused why you are referring to that as what is still happening in the West.
- Conveniently deleting examples of why that is the case to pretend it isn't, is quite hilarious! Head in the sand tactic, LMAO! – Just as I expected. If it's in the past, then you have no problem recognizing the evil & injustice of Western practices, since you haven't been indoctrinated to accept them; contrary to the people who conducted these heinous practices. They rather thought they were doing great things by "saving" "poor" "weak" children from their unlucky fates. But it's in past, so it doesn't matter right? You're probably going to say things like "we progress" "we learn from our mistakes"... say that to the countless people subjected to that suffering! – If it's in the present, then you have no problem with equally heinous Western practices, obviously since you have indeed been conditioned & indoctrinated to accept them. When the Swedish or Canadian social services forcibly remove children from their parents, because these hold unconventional views or are poor or immigrant, to be "saved" & "reintegrated" into Swedish or Canadian institutions & moved through foster homes, it is simply a continuation of similar practices against the Natives -only with different packaging. Back then, Christianity was the norm & the standard, it was ok to abduct Native children from their poor parents, to "kill the Indian & save the man". Today, Christianity no longer holds that sway, instead replaced with more liberal secular beliefs. – It is not that the practice of abducting children has stopped, it is just that the incentives & targets have changed. I'm sure your future successors will come to admit these crimes, just as you do now with your predecessors' crimes.
Would you like me to give you examples of how workers are treated in Islamic Arab nations?
- Well, lookie here. Isn't that a case of "you do it too"...?
As in, general workers not even just extreme cases. The working class is often specifically imported foreignors from India, Pakistan, Philippenes etc and they are underpaid, in terrible conditions and such.
- You're talking about the Gulf states? First of all, there is nothing Islamic about Arab countries. With the exception of Morocco, Jordan & Oman, all other Arab countries are under either secular or modern Islamist military post-colonial regimes. Second of all, the Gulf states are run under a capitalist western system, just like the rest of them in the West. Nevertheless, these laborers have often better conditions than their counterparts in your countries. In the UAE, minimal wage laborers earn between 1000 & 2000 AED monthly salary (equivalent to $520-$1040 net in purchasing power rate), compared to $1120 monthly minimum wage net in the US. However, contrary to the case in the US, in the UAE the employer must pay for accommodation, meals, medical insurance, 10-day paid medical leave, 30-day paid vacation per year, & one-way ticket home per year to their workers. – In truth, without the extensive indoctrination & incessant propaganda they subjugate you under since childhood: "west is best", you would instead be concerned about yourselves & your problems.
Created:
-->
@eventuality001
Num 22:6 - The Midianites joined forces with the Moabites in order to smite Israel and drive Israel out of the land.Israel was at W A R with the nations surrounding them - FOR 40 LONG AND BLOODY YEARSIsrael had already been fighting wars and battles with nearly every major superpower around them. AND ISRAEL WAS ATTACKED FIRST - Israel was fighting a defensive war against the Midianites.In - Numbers 31: it explains that - the Midianites had allied themselves and joined with the Moabites AGAINST ISRAEL - to destroy and eliminate the Hebrew people.Num 22:6 - The Midianites joined forces with the Moabites in order to smite Israel and drive Israel out of the land.One can pretend, fantasize or imagine that after the Jews achieved victory - that the captured Midianite virgins were passed around and sold and used as sex slaves -but this is simply fantasy and imagination.
- Why should we believe your wishes over what the text states?
The Bible does not condone RAPING WOMEN AND KILLING THE FAMILY OF THE WOMAN.Every single event in the Bible where VIRGINS were spared and saved - was the consequences of generational war
- You missed "and raped".
Israel was defending itself and killing all of the males of the enemy who had been at war with you for many, many years was necessary to win this war.
- And the women & children & even cattle?
In todays modern times, in order to win wars, the victor MUST bomb entire cities - men, women and children must be all killed - in WWll millions upon millions of women and children were killed in massive bombings throughout Japan and Germany.
- Coming from a Christian, this is not shocking at all. I appreciate you owning up to your heinous violence.
The Jews were greatly outnumbered - fighting a generational war for 40 long and bloody years against multiple civilizations - the Jews did not have bombs and chemicals - the Jews simply killed the entire city and spared anything that would not harm them in the future.this would be all disease - free, woman and sometimes the livestock.
- Indeed. Hence, the Crusades & Colonialism, massacres galore.
The reason feminists' defend Islam is because they need Islam to represent the Bible. they do not even take time to look at the original manuscripts and accept that the Trinitarians have greatly perverted the entire bible.
- What does the Bible have to do with Islam??? Islam doesn't teach any of that insane violence found in the Bible.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You have typed things without giving examples...
- I have provided several.
Are you referring to what the Chinese government did to the Uyghur people recently?
- LOL! What the West does every day to Muslims in their own countries is far worse than what the Chinese are doing to the Uyghur (if we believe western reports about this anyways).
Can you please give sources backing up what you're saying has happened?
- It would've taken you two seconds to Google the examples I mentioned... Regardless, The Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978 gave, for the first time, Native American parents the right to refuse their children's abduction into boarding or public schools. In Canada, Native children enslavement continued until late 1990s. Beyond the systematic removal of their culture culture, language & history, they were also subject to abuse, torture, rape, forced labor, starvation, & often used as lab rats. – In Switzerland, until the 1980s, hundreds of children were abducted from their parents under the pretext that they are poor or Gypsies & auctioned to be sold at the cheapest princes to farmers to work as slaves, the Verdingkinder. They too suffered immense physical, psychological & even sexual abuse. – Sweden (along with the other Nordic countries) still practices this today. 300,000 children abducted from their parents & forcibly placed into foster families, under social-economic & ideological pretexts, by the rightly called: "child care & abduction industry". Just like its American counterpart, it is aimed at "civilizing" children of "savage" parents... "sole parent families,
economically and educationally weaker families, families with health challenges and
immigrant parents are targeted by the social services in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and
Finland. Also parents with religious and philosophical beliefs, which do not seem to be
politically accepted, are often deemed as unsuitable parents".
Created:
-->
@Dynasty
But you haven't refuted what I said.
- LMAO! You have said nothing to even refute. All you do is evade.
Sadly, since you're a waste of time. I'm not going to waste my time with you.
- I'll take that as a concession. Get lost.
Created:
-->
@Dynasty
Yep, I can tell you're stupid.
- These imbecilic tactics are still not helping your case, moron!
Try not cherry-picking Bible verses when you get called out on your bullsh*t, darling.
- You're projecting your evasion, sweet heart.
Also, try these verses for a change:"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. in the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:1-5
- This does not address the other verses I mentioned at all. Every time you show a Christian "slaughter their babies" they bring up "turn the other cheek", as if that helps in any way...
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church - for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." Ephesians 5:25-33
- Following: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."
"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." Colossians 3:19
- Following: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."
"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayer." 1 Peter 3:7
- Following: "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear."
Also, try reading the full chapter of Rev 14 next time.
- Again, this does not address the aforementioned verses. Muslims believe some of the Bible to be true & some of it to be altered. In effect, Church father always deemed women impure & the source of impurity & original sin. Why are you running from it?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
- Your vomit inducing History & culture.
The cultures you just stated are among the single most open to immigrants maintaining their culture and religious outlooks
- On the absolute contrary. No culture or society in Human History has been more antithetical to other's cultures than European/Western. You're speaking of slogans & labels you've been indoctrinated into since baby age, those don't mean anything. Reality is otherwise. Case in point, even you yourselves are revolted by the practices of your predecessors a couple of decades ago, who in their turn revolted by the practices of their predecessors, & so on. It is just that you don't see how revolting your practices are today because of the immense & incessant indoctrination & propaganda you've been exposed to all your life to accept them. But to us today or to your successors tomorrow, not be exposed to these same indoctrinations, the disgust is there.
, as well as developing a more secular approach within their own nation in the first place.
- Indeed. By force of law, international conventions, foreign policies, economic pressure, blockades & up to violence & invasions.
Are you talking about something 1920s and before?
- I'm talking about your entire History until today. The practice of kidnapping children from their minority parents into bondage -due to socioeconomic or moral reasons- has been a widely common practice in the West for centuries, & still is. This fundamentally stems from three reasons.
- One, the extremely xenophobic nature of European mentality -overall, though more pronounced in some ethnicities than others. Indeed, this gave European ethnic groups heightened senses of in-group loyalty & solidarity which allowed them to more easily overcome their enemies & dominate others. This was true when European identity was tribal, such as in the case of Goths & Normands. It was still true when the identity became religious, starting with the Frankish state, to the Holy Roman Empire, & the subsequent states of the Spanish Empire & so on. & it is still just as true when their identity became national & secular. In all these times & all these cases, the other is simply unacceptable, at the very least intolerable. Hence, the religious wars in Europe lasting 7 centuries which caused the deaths of dozens of millions of people; many sects or Christian denominations or indigenous religions were annihilated in the process. When religious identity waned in the continent in favor of a secular one -particularly racial & nationalistic, other races & nations became thus intolerable -including the religious nation. The Church then subjugated to the State, under the banner of "Separation of Church & State", with very limited religious freedom granted in practice within the secular framework. Two world wars were fought for that effect. – In the Secular Liberal Western country, others can only be subjugated & their mores ever intolerable. Not only are the minority's mores NOT allowed to inform the law, court, or the policies (or any systemic institution like education & academia) whatsoever, these mores are not allowed to inform the minority's own choices & practices apart from the majority. For instance, Muslims (or natives, or otherwise) will never be allowed to practice their faith freely or their native customs, unless outside the restraints of Secular system. – Particularly, the kidnapping of children is a simply way to insure conformity to the majority system, in case of fear of non-adherence.
- Two, the totalitarian nature of the Western system itself. Either, as a Christian Monarchic system, or as Liberal Secular Democratic system, for each of these qualifier is antithetical to minority droit. Liberalism is conducive to individualist privilege at the expense of the community, thus minority destruction -itself a community. Secularism entails the secular supersession over all other moral & ethical norms, especially over minority morality & ethics. Democracy is literally rule of the majority against the minority. – Upholding such system & insuring its stability necessitates maximizing conformity in morality & minimizing community dissent. Children perceived to be potential non-adherents are kidnapped to remove that risk.
- Three, honestly just because they can & they get away with it. Protestant White children are never kidnapped to be brought up in Catholicism, yet Muslim or native children often are. Utter disdain of the other coupled with the power to impose one's will without repercussion, will inevitable result in such continuous massive scale kidnappings.
Can you give me actual examples of these accusations?
- Native American children were systematically abducted from their parents or coerced into boarding schools from the 17th century up to the late 1970s to be "civilized". In Switzerland, as recently as the 1980s, 'slave children' were abducted from their parents if they are indebted or poor or from minority ethnicities & sold in auctions to farms or factories for labor. Similar disgusting abductions were practiced elsewhere in Europe, or in Canada & Australia, & still are today. For instance, in many European countries -if not all, it's very common for immigrant children (sometimes even native) to be abducted by the state from their parents to be "civilized" & brainwashed in Western institutions then thrown into White families, under the pretext of "protecting" children from traditional "uncivilized" beliefs & customs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
That's an non sequitur, darling.
- On the contrary.
Created:
-->
@Dynasty
No, I haven't conceded the other 3 passages.
- No defense = concession.
I get you just want to win, but it's not working.
- Futile last attempt at saving face.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
But was it endorse by God? I bet you're going to use Lot and try to argue "GOD LIKE THIS!!!", when the passage doesn't imply that at all.
- Lot among another 100 as well... If the prophet does these things, then these are endorsed by God, for they are His messengers. Even if we suppose these practices were not endorsed by God, then what is the incentive of obeying God if the prophets, as His own messengers, do not themselves obey.
Created:
-->
@Dynasty
Shit, I think you don't know what metaphors are.
- Does not help your case any more still.
That is me explaining to you that passage doesn't say you think it says.
- Still waiting for that explanation.
Gee, can you not do some thinking for a second?
- If you can't think, just admit & concede. You already conceded the other 3 passages.
I'm your mirror, darling.
- Good. Hence you agree with me. Thanks for conceding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Actually, I don't. So, this is textbook projection.
- Case in point.
Everything you bring up immoral verses in the Quran
- For a Christian used to all the genocide, rape, incest, murder, idol worship, slavery, adultery... practiced by prophets in the Bible, of course the Quran with its great virtues in justice & mercy would seem immoral to you.
Muslims deflects to the Bible like that's going to help them out.
- It is the Bible that isn't helping you out, darling.
Created:
-->
@Dynasty
Gee, I can tell you're not that bright of a light bulb.
- This is stupid defense, it doesn't help your case one bit.
Numbers 13 or 31? Also, go watch this video, yet I'm not going to waste my time with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXbAhy3rKU4
- Use your words, or conceded.
Old testament law, darling.
- Bible law, darling. This addresses nuthin, darling. Conceded.
Been there, done that.
- So you agree man to woman is as God is to man?
Poisoning the well, as it never implies that women are impure & those who touch them defile themselves.
- This isn't even a defense. I'll take that as a concession.
Try harder next time. Because you're just embarrassing yourself, their darling.
- I guess that's a mirror you're talking to. I agree! Try harder, darling. Or, just try.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
- The entire West: Europe, US, Canada, & Australia. – For instance, the wide-scale kidnapping & bondage of native & indigenous children to be "civilized" into White debauched culture in North America & Australia. The kidnapping & enslavement of Swiss low-class children of in-debt or poor parents to be sold into farms or factories. The kidnapping & captivity of immigrant children to be brainwashed & reassigned under White families.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Kidnapped and sold? What is it you are referring to?
- Millions of children kidnapped from their parents in the West through state programs like slaves, due to race, religion or class to be forced into White culture &/or Christianity, or to work in farms & factories, or enslaved into White families; sometimes also sold in auctions.
Created:
-->
@Dynasty
It clearly says strike them hardly, not lightly.
- Let's see... the beloved Prophet (pbuh) said "do not leave any mark", "do not strike the face", "the best among you will not strike", & his companions when asked about the manner of striking said "with a tooth brush". – Who should we believe... this or your imaginations!
Weird because there more Quran verses that are anti-woman.
- No. This is not the Bible, which advocates:
- Little girls are to be killed or raped: "And now, slay every male among the infants, indeed, slay every woman knowing a man by the lying of a male, and all the infants among the women who have not known the lying of a male you have kept alive for yourselves." (Numbers 13:17-18)
- Girls who fornicate are to be burnt alive: "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profanes her father: she shall be burnt with fire.". (Leviticus 21:9)
- Women are the glory of men & the man is the head of the woman: "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. [...] the head of the woman is man." (1 Corinthians 11:6-7)
- Women are impure & those who touch them defile themselves: "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes." (Revelation 14:4)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
- You have it backwards.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So, your defense is 'others have done it too'.
- No! That's what you were literally doing. I thought you had a good case? You didn't answer me about the millions of kidnapped & sold children. How do you defend that?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Nope I haven't forgotten the 1st Gulf war of 17 January 1991 .Who could ever forget the loss of Allied lives saving the lives of these innocent Arabs. This will be the war where the world seen Saddam Husain a much more powerful country invade the tiny Muslim country of Kuwait and asked for military assistance from the USA..
- Hahahaha! Why are you using American & British war propaganda on me?! This is why Americans & westerners are so ignorant, they can't fathom that their own indoctrination & propaganda does not work for the rest of the world. You know, in French schools, they teach them how France saved Algerians from the Ottomans, built the country & taught these barbaric Arabs civilization. Myths of course... We know reality is otherwise though... I have no desire to discuss this with an ignorant like you, unless in formal debate. But for those confused, here are some facts about the Gulf War:
- The region was under British & French occupation, as per Sykes-Picot. It went under US occupation post WWII, which gave them huge leverage on global energy supplies.
- Iraqis attempted to resist the occupation, to which the British responded with wide scale bombing of the country, courtesy of your hero Churchill. In Iran, however, a puppet regime was installed instead.
- At the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution & the rise of Arab nationalism in Iraq to power, the other gulf states were offered independence for fear of similar fate, in exchange for dependency. For instance, Kuwait was a de-facto US dependency, whose oil was under American & British control.
- Despite shaky start, the US came to see Arab nationalism as a tool to get rid of undesirable Islamism & Communism, thus Iraq was taking out of terrorist lists in 1982, paving the way to US-led anti-Iranian alliance with Saddam for the next decade. The US supported Iraq militarily, technically & strategically for that effect.
- During that decade, Iraq achieved significant economic & technological development, virtually unique in the Muslim world, & especially in the Arab world. Science & engineering flourished in the country, along with large infrastructure projects, healthcare & education.
- Unbeknown to the Americans, Saddam was taking advantage of the situation to achieve his own goals. Unlike Syrian trend Arab nationalism, the Iraqi Arab nationalism saw Islam as an integral part of Arab identity. He say Israel as a perpetual enemy of Arabs.
- Leading up to his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam had conferences with Arab leaders critical of the Gulf states silent support for Israel. Kuwait's reaction was to hamper Iraq's access to its Islands (without Kuwait's islands at Iraq's border, the country becomes landlocked).
- Shortly before this, Saddam proposes a joint disarmament campaign in the region; that he would get rid of his missiles if Israel does the same, which is flat out rejected by the US.
- Saddam proceeds to negotiate with Kuwait, in regards to their conspiracy with Western powers (the US & UK) to undermine the region & the country's autonomy. Upon consulting his American allies (still at the time), the US expresses no position on the matter. He proceeds to take control of the designated territories.
- Immediately after, Saddam sees himself confronted with several UN resolutions & sanctions, of the cruelest caliber. This is only a few months after the US invasion of Panama.
- Afterwards, Saddam proposes several propositions to withdraw from Kuwait territories, which were conditioned by some resolution involving Israel; first, to a joint disarmament campaign, then eventually to a UN counsel for the Palestinian cause, all of which blocked or rejected by the US. Ultimately, Saddam opted for safe withdrawal, which was also rejected by the US.
- The US proceeds to invade Iraq, under the pretext of "saving" poor Kuwait from bad Saddam, & the rest of the propaganda.
- Thereafter, 10 years of the most brutal sanctions on food were enforced, leading to the death of half a million Iraqis from starvation, in the worst humanitarian crisis of its kind. GDP per capita plummeted to a 10th of its value within a couple of years.
- >>> The lesson here is "our enemies must know we are irrational and vindictive so that they fear us". Saddam got cocky from receiving US support for years, he thought he could undermine its oil control in the region or touch the tyranny of Israel. So he got punished for it. These types of one-sided brutalities, however, are no longer viable anymore, for the world is growing out of Western mono-polarity.
Nope. No invasion there. In fact Indonesia–United States relations have been pretty solid since c 1950.
Nope. No invasion there either.. U.S. assistance for resettlement of refugees following the 1972 peace settlement with the south added further improved relations.Nope . No US invasion there either.Nope. No invasion there either. Well unless you are referring to US navel attacks on oil platforms is the Gulf.
- Damn! What is this nonsense! I guess even Hitler's atrocities seemed pretty justifiable in his head. The difference between you & him, he didn't expect others to fall for his propaganda, but you seem to hold on to that hope. LMAO! I'm not even gunna attempt to cure your supremacist delusions. You seem to have some ideas about this, let's have a debate. Maybe you can show everyone how American interventions are so nice & all that jazz.
The USA have never invaded Palestine. In fact The United States sought a middle way by supporting a United Nations resolution, buy encouraging negotiations between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East.
- Did they now! Can you remind me on what planet you live in?
And where once an accord was met via US peace talks and to the annoyance and disgust of Muslim /Arab countries around the world and only for Arafat to whisper to his Muslim brothers "remember alnajjar".. This of course was reference to the so called prophet Muhammad's two faced double dealing where he immediately went back on his words of peace .
- You're conflating Western practice of treachery & violating their word as if it's Law, with the truth of out beloved Prophet (pbuh). Since you seem too eager to defend, why not have a debate on this?!
Well of course you haven't. You are as ignorant to the mass protests against the Invasion of Iraq
- I ain't, I was speaking of Tony Blair. I still see none.
as you are ignorant to the fact Islam is not a religion of peace.
- Whatever Islam is, it's decidedly at least a billion times more peaceful than your repulsively violent nations.
Here is just one example of many here in England and one among many worldwide.UK's 'biggest peace rally'
- Your country itself was the instigator of the invasion, hence the protests. I don't see any protests against attacks by westerners or christians on Muslims from the Western world & the Christian world, do you?
Now would you be so kind as to post a link to protests from around the Islamic world of millions of Muslims shouting "not in my name" after the 9/11 attacks on the West. Or any "Islamist" attack on the West.
- Are you stupid or something?! What do 2 billion Muslims or 60 Muslim countries have to do with crimes some gang somewhere decides to do. – This just shows how deeply hateful & racist you are.
I think the signing a petition by One Million Five Hundred Thousand is a protest of sorts. did you sign it ?
- That's appreciated. Why wouldn't you do the same against Churchill?
Well you can always show me to be wrong. What's stopping you?
- You don't follow the news?
Nope. One the fawn was placed on the head of Salman Rushdie by the mad Mullah in IRAN! The Islamic world exploded into chants of death to this author for simply writing a novel. strange real, that most of the backward Islamic world cannot even speak English never mind read English. Are you denying that a fatwa is still on the head of the author Salman Rushdie?
- Maybe you should find an Iranian to share these thoughts with. This means nothing to me. & I've never met or seen anyone in my life for whom Rushdie meant anything. Strange still, I'm always baffled about how Brits care too much about this nonsense story. I guess when you got nothing to fuel your hate, anything will do.
Yes I was among the first couple of hundred. How about yourself and any of your 2 billion Muslim brothers.
- That's very commendable. Next is Churchill.
Not in my name, Yassine. And I do feel a sad about the illegal Iraqi war. But it was out of my hands, just as the the attacks by Muslim fanatics is out of yours;
- That's the second sensible thing you say. But it does not deduct from your support of the rest of Western atrocities.
well at least I would like to believe that of you.
- Well, we still know you support Western terrorism & injustice. That is a fact, as is the fact that I don't support any unjust attacks or injustice in general, wether by Muslims or otherwise, as per my faith.
And you ignoring stone cold facts by pretending that the Quran and Islam promotes Jihad by the sword by the order of Allah and His Prophet..
- I'm not ignoring, nor pretending. But why is it, as someone from the a Western country -which grants absolutely zero rights to allied or enemy combatants, prisoners or civilians-, that you're so critical of the Quran & the beloved Muhammed (pbuh) for granting such rights? [That is, right to faith, life & wealth for non-combatants; & right to security, ransom, grace or custody for prisoners.]
Do you fell any guilt?
- Not for the non-existence of rights of allied or enemy aliens in your countries? You should though.
And you have been very selective with you analysis of western foreign policy. You totally ignore the intervention in Kosovo where the west (rightly) saved the lives of countless Muslims from Serbian ethnic cleansing.
- Blahblah... That had nothing to do with saving poor Albanians or Bosnians, it just so happened that Muslims lives met US interests, which is to punish the last stronghold of communist defiance in Europe; else they'd be the ones getting massacred, not the Yugoslavs. While this was happening, the US was starving Iraqis & backing equally brutal regimes across the Muslim world.
Your skewed take on of the first Gulf War where, thanks to US-led intervention, Kuwaitis were spared the horrors of a protracted Iraqi occupation is absolute bullshit.
- Care to debate that?
Your lambasting of the west for supporting Arab dictators, forgetting that many such leaders (i.e. Assad) thrive instead on Russian and Chinese support.
- Russians are bad too, West is still badder though.
But to acknowledge such complexity would be far too problematic for you. I have yet to see you complain about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.. That too is problematic for you too isn't it.
- I'll be sure to mention that when a Russian is my interlocutor.
And wasn't Afghanistan a peaceful Buddhist country before YOU invaded it?
- It became even more peaceful & prosperous after Islamic conquest. Afghanistan was under Sassanian rule, it naturally came under Muslim rule with the fall of the empire.
Go way Yassine.
- Did you mean "away"?
Your barbaric ideology is stuck in the 7th century and you cannot reform it even if you wanted to, so are compelled to support it
- More numbing huh! That's what the French were professing while slaughtering a third of the Algerian population by gathering them in caves & burning them inside or burning their fields on them. The most cruel & repulsive & violent ideology in Human History is, in all fact, Western ideology. Your attempts to defend that by shouting "barbaric" & such are just pitiful.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So, you should beat the crap out of somebody for making a joke?
- You mean this:
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
It is simple to me what you are doing. You are just using any source that you can to justify that hate speech policies exist, however you are ignoring 2 aspects here:
- Punishment severity
- Punishment porportionality
The severity of punishment at most a few years vs the 20 years minimum elsewhere but there's all the way down to fining or just a warning. In Islamic society the punishment severity is as far as death penalty which will be public and humiliating from the sounds of the hanging or whatever is planned (I hope not a stoning).
- We are comparing blasphemy laws in Pakistan vs. in the West here. First, there is de-facto no death penalty for blasphemy in Pakistan, the sentence is suggestive, usually they are held for a while until they repent, then released. Second, in Europe or the US, punishment extends more than just a prison sentence, including damages & fines, which can run upwards of hundreds of thousands of USD (or EUR) up to millions -which may also incur extra prison time for non-payment. Third, an argument from severity is nonsense when it comes to secular punishment, for these are largely customary & differ in time & place. A person in the US can get mere 3 years in prison for murdering another with the right sob-story, while another could get decades of incarceration for mere insults; or may get no punishment in one state, & 15 years across the next one. Finally, blasphemy laws in the Muslim world are mostly associated with Pakistan, & are not a big deal elsewhere, for good reason. Pakistan-India separation -thanks to British divide & rule- caused the deaths of more than a MILLION people from both sides. Blasphemy laws were set to prevent any potential civil conflict in the country, between the millions of Hindus (& Sikhs) still living in Pakistan today & the majority Muslim population. Grievances between these groups are deep, further exacerbated by India's Hindu expansionism & hostility to Pakistan. Without those blasphemy laws, lynching will occur instead -as is the case in India or Africa, which may lead to greater cycles of revenge & civil conflicts.
- As to Islamic Law's take on blasphemy. The issue is twofold. Concerning freedom of faith, non-Muslims under Islamic rule are allowed to criticize the beloved Prophet (pbuh) & Islam within their right to defend their own faith or convince their followers, within their communities & territories. This is a given, for if they believed Muhammed (pbuh) to be without blemish, they would've followed him. However, they are not allowed to do so with the intent to incite hate against Muslims or undermine the state. In fact, the best medieval Christian critiques of the Prophet (pbuh) & Islam were done under Muslim rule. For instance, John of Damascus, an Orthodox Church Father. Himself, his father & grandfather, worked as high officials in the Umayyad Caliphate court. Yet, he wrote extensively against Islam & the Prophet (pbuh), calling him a deceiver, a magician, an adulterer...etc. As a matter of fact, he was often invited to the Caliph's court to debate Muslims concerning these issues, as was the custom of Muslim caliphs & debates with non-Muslims in the past – Concerning blasphemy, non-Muslims under Islamic rule are not allowed to defame the Prophet (pbuh) or insult him in Muslim territories or to Muslims, unless otherwise intended, else they must repent or be punished; -which may range from discretionary penalty (in the Hanafi school) to death.
The proportionality of punishment is like this, one is punishing people going out of their way to spread hatred and incite abuse towards ethnicities, races, genders etc. The other is questioning if a particular human being (or perhaps deity) was and is worth the worship we gave and give them. The latter only 'hurts' people that are seeking to bully people into silence on a matter that should be completely able to be defended against argumentation, since they believe that their worship of Muhammad and Allah are reasonable and justifiable.
- If only. Reality is contrary. While some blasphemy laws in the West may indeed touch on hate speech, a lot of it is exactly what you're trying to bounce off on Pakistan. For instance, many historians who attempted to question the validity of the narrative of the Holocaust or its historicity were penalized for it. If the truth of the Holocaust was easily defended against argumentation, as you say, there would be no reason to bully & silence those attempting to question it. Blasphemy laws in Pakistan, on the other hand, do not extend to civil criticism of the Prophet (pbuh) or arguments against him, they only extend to spiteful denigration & mocking, or in your own words: going out of their way to spread hatred and incite abuse towards peoples.
The only reason to scare the crap out of poeple in order to silence them on anything in Islam but especially a human being like Muhammad is that you are fundamentally a gangster enforcer on behalf of Muhammad's soul and are bullying people into caving into pseudo-Islam out of fear of repercussion.
- This is balderdash. Muslims do not rise in uproar because the beloved Prophet (pbuh) is criticized or condemned, that happens all the time. They don't care. The do when he (pbuh) is mocked & denigrated, which is deeply denigrating & humiliating to them & what they hold sacred. Similarly, African Americans do not get furious because some White dude criticized Black culture, they do when they are denigrated, such as through the "nigger". – One does not use the slur "nigger" to be critical & truth seeking does he?! The difference between insult & constructive criticism is obvious.
You have told me elsewhere that in order to be a real Muslim, the real Islam is to genuinely surrender wilfully to Allah and Muhammad PBUH.
- Surrender to Allah, the way to do it through the teachings of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).
Yet, there is absolutely no way this will be achieved if one keeps associating them with the thug like enforcement
- Muslims have always been open to debate & discussion, simply because we have the Truth; & Truth prevails. I'm here always open to debate, yet you don't wish to debate me. – In fact, the 'Monk & Sultan' Christian apologetics genre grew popular during the Abbasid period, from excessive debating. – The problem is not with Islam, it's with Secular Liberalism, which spread to the world by the sword in the most brutal forms, while firmly excluding any alternative challenges or worldviews from any institutional sphere in the West, be it education, government, justice, academia, media...etc.
going on against those who dare question the correctness of worshipping those 2.
- Muslims don't worship the beloved Muhammed (pbuh), "Muḥammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him." (3:144).
Created:
the iraqi people weclomed the american army to their lands as the american army removed the statue of Saddam Husseinthe iraqi people celebrated the end of the dictator that ruled them with blood and steeland then they expected the american armies to leave , ? did they think that the panzers and fighter planes work on air or water ?in any case this is the religious forum and not the political nor the historical one
- War propaganda!? Really??! This reminds me of those novels back in the 18th century portraying how Native Americans were happy & welcoming to British colonizers. How dumb can you possibly be?! +1 MILLION died +4 MILLION injured or disabled & +35 MILLION lost their homes, & you dare say they were happy & welcoming!
the american army didn't come close to what saddam hussein did to iraqi people during his rule , also saddam hussein had opressed all shia muslims in iraqNOT even a single shia muslim was allowed to practice their faith under his rule and america freed them giving them the right to practice their faith
- & not a single Muslim was allowed to practice their faith in America... Your lies are getting a little too fantastic...
look as the iraqi people celebrated the end of saddam hussein regimedon't ask america for help if you're not willing to pay the costs which are needed to move the armyarmies don't work on air , just moving the american army requires a massive amount of money
- Let me get this straight. The US invading other nations, massacring their people & pillaging their wealth, should also make them pay for the expenses of invading them. Despicable! You are borderline insane, or maybe just boiling with hate & Islamophobia.
I've already discussed how to judge whither a religion is true or not using parameterslikethe moral parameter :does that religion order people to do any immoral things ?
- You're a criminal nut. Immorality incarnate itself. Who are you kidding!
did the person receiving the religion from god did any immoral thingsNOTE : presentism DOESN'T APPLY to people who take their moral values from god since you know GOD unless their god is an evil god in which the whole religion is discarded since the claim that god is always goodthe logical parameter :no supernatural shitno crazy stories-and if any existed they need witnesses and not just from the religious group following the religion-bad example : muhammad spilt the moon and only his followers saw it Not a single civilization living back then saw itnot the chinese not the romans not the persians not the maya and inca none saw it other than muhammad and his followers and they have the audacity to claim that nasa mentioned that the moon was splitthe scientific checking parameter :all scientific claims would be analysed by both linguistic experts and real scientists to check if they are true or not
- You keep repeating the same mantras & the same nonsense. I'd get tired if I was you.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Just out of interest, which Muslim country had the USA "invaded" before 9/11?
- Perhaps you've forgotten Iraq in the FIRST Gulf War?! Add to the list, Indonesia, Sudan, Chad, Iran, Palestine... with support of military brutal regimes, foreign interference, assassinations, insurgences, civil wars...etc, across the Globe. You question is stupid to begin with. Since WWII, much of the Cold War happened in Latin America, Southeast Asia & the Muslim world, for these were buffer zones between the Americans & the Soviets.
Millions don't agree with this and I personally believe the the war criminal Tony Blair should be in prison. Millions took to the streets shouting " not in my name" against the war in Iraq.
- I haven't seen any such protests. I don't see you protesting now against Tony Blair's new shiny title. Regardless, that means nothing. Your nation itself did indeed invade other nations & massacred peoples & pillaged countries.
I have yet to see one single Muslim protest doing the same after a "Islamist" terror attack.
- With "dig my head in the sand" attitude, I'm sure you haven't, unless you're lying of course. Then again, it doesn't matter either. Al-Qaeda did that, what's that got to do with the other 60 Muslim countries & their 2 billion population????!!!
I have though seen millions of Muslims take to the streets all around the Islamic world shouting "death " to a man that simply wrote novel and now has a bounty on his head worth $millions.
- Umm... did you dream that too?
Can I take it that you have done something productive yourself and have encouraged at least one of your 2.1 billion Muslim brothers to sign one of the petitions against the war criminal Blair's award? 1.1 million people had signed the last time I looked.
- How about you, have you signed any petitions to expose Churchill (an even bigger criminal than Blair)?. – The point of this whole discussion is to show the fakeness & baseness of the Western nation. The greatest criminals, though with an even greater PR. A mosque Imam who calls for Jihad in self-defense goes to prison, & the actual war criminal is celebrated.
The point of my thread is the denials by many Muslims that Islam promotes conversion by the sword, when it clearly does at the cost of young Muslim lives.
- This nonsense is the only way you can numb your guilt of association with all these epic villains of your country, like Churchill & Blair. So you must at least have some decency there to feel guilty at least.
Created:
"churchill or Leopold or Mitterand or the rest of them " none of which commited genocide
- They have, along with the others too, like De Gaul, Stalin & the rest of them. Leopold, the Congo genocide; Mitterand, the Rwandan genocide; Churchill the Bengal genocide; Le Gaul, the Algerian genocide...etc.
we are not discussing history we are discussing religion
- You aren't.
hitler nearly removed the Jewish people from the face of earth
- From Europe... as did the rest of them. Churchill opted for removing Jews from Europe by genociding Palestinians instead & giving their lands to European Jews.
and since we are discussing history thanks to some asshole , I can't help but wonder who that ishitler claimed that germans are the superior race something that none of the others didhitler killed people for their skin colour none of the people you mentioned before did that
- LOL! I like your fantasies. Churchill was more racist than Hitler, "I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, though he may have lain there for a very long time I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race or at any rate a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. I do not admit it. I do not think the Red Indians had any right to say, 'American continent belongs to us and we are not going to have any of these European settlers coming in here'. They had not the right, nor had they the power." "great barbaric nations would menace civilised nations, The Aryan stock is bound to triumph"...
this is about religion , I've never thought that you would stand on the side of racism but what can you expect from a muslim ?
- Dude, you're the most despicable racist I've ever seen. You're not fooling anyone by hiding behind "racism".
islam is a religion , it's not a race , just like christianity , judaism , buddhism , ,,,,,etcbeing black , white , arab , asian , african is a race
- That's the excuse racists use to hide their boiling hate. Just admit it, we both know it.
jesus doesn't get offended by the insults of pathetic humans somthing that one should expect from a god , and making fun of the genecide of an entire jewish religion is extreme evil being racist is also extreme evil
- Blahblahblah... This nonsense does not address the fact that blasphemy is punished in the US. But we know you're OK with it, just not when Muslims do it.
NOif a kid pissed in a mosques they are to be taught that they shouldn't piss therebut if child was racist at such young age and that problem wasn't fixed what will they become when they grow up , after all we don't want another hitler
- Maybe a kid who sends racists texts should be taught that they shouldn't as well, no? What should we do to the kid who goes to a Black dude's mom's grave & pisses on it?
I remember before a certain asshole came when we discussed only religion here and mentioning a country's name or history -unless it's theocracy - was considered a taboo but then that asshole came and we started discussing politics , history and countries names started pupping up on every argumentthis is just to show how islam is killing/jailing people in 2022 for blasphemy and you claim that the west is evil , here is islam in 2022 being evil
- Christianity & the West are jailing & killing people for blasphemy as well. Speaking of Christianity, the BEST part of the Christian world is the West; Subsaharan Africa & South America are for the most part Christian, & I don't need to tell you how horrible things are there. They are still burning witches at the stake.
and judaism copied that from hinduism
- No.
so ?
- You're a despicable racist pretending otherwise. It would be easier on everyone if you just admit it. You just hate Islam & Muslims, they could literally be angels descending from Heaven & you'd still scream from the top of your lung while vomit hate. This isn't healthy man, for real. People like you end up shooting a mosque or doing something terrible they can't handle their emotions.
Created:
I love how you totally forgot to copy the hadithlet me put it as clearly as it's possible
- Switching topics, do you admit everything you said is wrong.
do you deny that muhammad said"Whoever you find doing as the people of Lot did (ie homosexuality), kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done, and if you find anyone having sexual intercourse with animal, kill him and kill the animal."
- The authenticity of this hadith is disputed, where the majority of scholars deem it a weak narration. Even if a sound narration, it's not sufficient ground for considering penalty. With the exception of the Hanbali school, all the other schools required Tawatur for penalties, not just soundness. That said, punishment for public sodomy could indeed go up to death penalty according to the Four Mathhabs, depending on the mathhab.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
- A very short list of child sacrifices in the US:
Created:
Now let me ask you a question ? who comes more as a devil ?the person who ask a father to kill his own son , or the one telling him not to kill his own son ?
- Why are you so worried about that, when it's literally law to kill your child in the West. – No one is actually as dumb as you to not understand the wisdom of the story!
Created: