NationStates Jolt Archive

If you are a Christian it is your duty to spread the message to others. It is not your duty to force confession. If this is not freedom of religon being removed then it is freedom of speech.

There are ways to spread the message without proseletyzing. If someone knows that you are a "follower of Christ" (a much better term to use in a Muslim country, as both "Christian" and "missionary" have bad connotations due to the actions of missionaries in those countries in the past) and you live a good life, that is witnessing.

If someone *asks* about your religion (which will happen in many Islamic countries) and you tell them about it, that is witnessing, but it is not proseletyzing.

If you are standing on the street corner handing out pamphlets, that is proseletyzing.

Granted, I am not saying it is right to arrest someone for this, only that your statement that you could "be arrested just for being a Christian" is patently false. You have to break a law to get arrested - and proseletyzing is against the law in their country.

My point is that Keru said that everyone has religious freedom in Saudi Arabia.

How is deprivation of your religious books "religious freedom"?

Please explain how that is free.

I never said it was.

Although, from what Muslim friends have told me, I can pretty much guarantee that nothing in the Koran really backs that practice up.

It is an unfair restriction, but does not demonstrate, as Neo has stated numerous times, that someone can "be arrested just for being Christian."


"Being a Christian" is not just a statement of fact, it is a practice. The practise involves reading the Bible and spreading the word to others. And also, Saudi law states that only Muslims can be citizens and Christians involved in any worship can be legally arrested for their worship as it is a religious practise that is outlawed. Ok so you cant

- Read the Bible
- Worship God
- Spread the word of God

While these do not ammount to "being a Christian" they are intrinsic parts. If in the UK special forces barged into Mosques and arrested the Muslims in there for worshiping Allah, basicly they are arresting them for being Muslim.

Well, on the UK website that gives travel information about laws, customs, etc. we see this bit about Saudi Arabia:
______________________
LOCAL LAWS AND CUSTOMS

Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country in which Islamic law is strictly enforced.

The public practice of any form of religion other than Islam, or proselytising, is not permitted. The importation and use of narcotics, alcohol, pork products and religious books (apart from the Qu'ran) and artefacts are forbidden.
______________________

Well, that looks like religious freedom to me. You're free to possess religious books only if they are the Qu'ran.

Keru, unless you can come up with a word or two from the Saudi Embassy, I'm afraid you're going to have to retract your statement that there is religious freedom in Saudi Arabia.

Granted, I am not saying it is right to arrest someone for this, only that your statement that you could "be arrested just for being a Christian" is patently false. You have to break a law to get arrested - and proseletyzing is against the law in their country.

But you also can be arrested for merely worshiping God in Saudia Arabia. This is clearly dissalowing religous freedom. Worshiping God comes under the catagory "Spreading Christianity"

I agree. Both Islamic and Christian fundamentalism are horrible.

But you also can be arrested for merely worshiping God in Saudia Arabia. This is clearly dissalowing religous freedom. Worshiping God comes under the catagory "Spreading Christianity"

Worshipping *in public* comes under the category, not worship within your own home.

And, like I said, I never said that they weren't restricting religious freedom. I am just demonstrating your overexaggerations.

- Read the Bible

You can't *import* the Bible.

- Worship God

Worship does not require a church.

- Spread the word of God

Spreading the word of God does not require proseletysing.

You can't *import* the Bible.


Nor can you posses one in Saudi Arabia


Worship does not require a church.


Agreed


Spreading the word of God does not require proseletysing.

True, in that case it is a restriction on freedom of speach. To support my arguement that "Being" of any religion bar Islam in Saudia Arabia is illegal, I point now to the fact that if you convert in SA you can expect a beheading on the charge of "apostasy". While this may not be specificly anti Christian it is definitely the breaking of freedom of religion.

And, like I said, I never said that they weren't restricting religious freedom. I am just demonstrating your overexaggerations.

Ok so you can *be* a Christian, you just cant do a great many of the things that are part of Christian life.

Ok so you can *be* a Christian, you just cant do a great many of the things that are part of Christian life.

Not everyone is a fundamentalist that has to force their particular brand of Christianity in others' faces.

However, like I said, I don't agree with the laws in the least. I just find it funny that you exaggerate this instance, but probably wouldn't care in the least if your own country banned, say, the Necronomicon or made it illegal to preach the Kama Sutra on the streets or banned "Satanic" rituals.

Not everyone is a fundamentalist that has to force their particular brand of Christianity in others' faces.


Evangalism is not "Forcing it in peoples faces"


However, like I said, I don't agree with the laws in the least. I just find it funny that you exaggerate this instance, but probably wouldn't care in the least if your own country banned, say, the Necronomicon or made it illegal to preach the Kama Sutra on the streets or banned "Satanic" rituals.

You dont know me so you cant judge. I am a great believer in equality of religious freedom.

To those who say that you can "Be" a member of a non Islamic faith in Saudi Arabi, but not practice I point now to the fact that if you convert in SA you can expect a beheading on the charge of "apostasy".

Evangalism is not "Forcing it in peoples faces"

It is the way most people do it these days. If someone doesn't want to hear about it, evangelizing will turn them *away* from God, not towards. And if you tried to evangelize to an Orthodox Muslim, they would laugh you out of their presence, as you have not even bothered to attempt to read Scripture in it's original language.

You dont know me so you cant judge. I am a great believer in equality of religious freedom.

Says the person who would be willing to legislate a personal religious belief with no backing in anything objective...

Says the person who would be willing to legislate a personal religious belief with no backing in anything objective...

And you would be willing to legislate pro it without any objective reason. And I said religous freedom and as far as I can see, homosexuality is not a religion.

Jesus was half mortal, with Mary as His mother and God as His Father. This may help you understand why He would ask God why God had forsaken Jesus. At the end of the crucifiction, He said, "It is done."

One of the more humorous things about Christianity is how split on key issues such as this. The oldest theology centers on the key point that he was fully mortal and fully divine.

But you also can be arrested for merely worshiping God in Saudia Arabia. This is clearly dissalowing religous freedom. Worshiping God comes under the catagory "Spreading Christianity"

Tough to back up since Allah is God.

I'd like to point out that a lot of this can be applied to China as well, but you don't hear too much about that. It's not even "theocracy" per se that is intolerant, more like dictatorship. The West is known for the (relatively recent) concept of freedom of religion. This idea didn't have much force until the republic actually turned out to be a halfway decent method for governing a large area. In areas with dictatorial governments (see China, many Middle Eastern countries, U.S.S.R. (defunct), Holy Roman Empire (defunct), England under a power monarchy to name a few) religious freedoms are not allowed. Either that or they persecute for some other thing (now thinking of Central Africa). Religion and totalitarian governments don't usually get along (unless we are talking about the Papal States, which are a history course unto themselves).

About Islam being spread by the sword: yes, the early Islamic states did go out and wage war. Yes they took massive amounts of ground that had previously been under Christian or other influence. Yes, it is a pretty common event that when any group that had been shunted to the side by more powerful empires was finally united they went out to make war (Assyrians, Babylonians, Jews, Macedonians, Romans, Mongols, Huns, Visigoths, etc.).
And, yes, many people under the tax imposed upon other peoples of the book converted to Islam. It however seems unlikely that the nations imposing these taxes were insistent that they convert, they made a lot of money on those taxes, so much that it gradually became more and more difficult to join the Islamic faith. Generally the local populaces were left alone by their Muslim conquerors, who wisely saw that the beaureaucrats who had been running the conquered territories could do so just fine. A fair number of the horror stories about Islamic occupation were spread by the Church (there was still only one at the time) and local rulers to stem the flow of people from Christian lands into the lands under Islamic control at the time.

The Shariah says Rajm (stoning). Same for a man.

The Qur'an says flogging, 100 lashes. 24:2 "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication flog each of them".

So which one is right, the word of Allah in the Koran or the Saruah? Or is the Saruah not baised on either the Koran or the Hadith? :confused:

Are US troops in Iraq not Christians killing Muslims?

No. Some U.S. troops are Christians, some are Moslems, some are Jews, some are Athiest, some are....... :headbang:

So which one is right, the word of Allah in the Koran or the Saruah? Or is the Saruah not baised on either the Koran or the Hadith? :confused:


The Qur'an is, in all things, the supreme authority.

It goes on to say that anyone found guilty (and it must be in a trial form with witnesses and whatnot and ways out of the punishment ... not just some guy accussing his wife) of adultery may only marry someone else who has been found guilty of the same.

Out of curiosity - I thought it was considered sacrilege for a non-Muslim to even touch the Koran?

Nah ... but out of respect, it's a good idea to make abulation before entering the mosque. Washing the hands, face, feet, etc. I don't think it's required, but it's one of those respectful things ... like non-Jewish men putting on a yamulka when entering a synagogue or taking off your shoes at the door of a friend's house who doesn't want dirt on their carpet.

Most people don't have a problem with simple courtesy.

And I said religous freedom and as far as I can see, homosexuality is not a religion.

Pfft ... you should meet some of my gay friends ...

1) I still have that list of 148 questions on my harddrive. Essential reading, I think.

:D I got some very good answers to all of that and am still in the process of sorting them all through and will eventually turn it into an eBook.

2) Neo Cannen hasn't actually read the Bible - so the chances are slim that he has read Qur'an.

Ah ... hrmmm.

3) Is it an e-Qur'an... or are you talking about mailing an actual Qur'an? If it's an electronic one, I might be interested... since the last time I read the Qur'an was almost a decade ago, and most of my 'religious' books are 4000 miles away, now. :(

Unfortunately, I don't know of any copy of Ali's translation in electronic format. It may be out there, though. I'll do a search later.

4) As a matter of interest - some of my Moslem friends told me that you cannot read the Qur'an in translation. They said the ONLY way to read it is in the native tongue, otherwise it is corrupt... so, if Neo thinks he has a case against it, he better be able to back it up with original language scripture.

Well, obviously something is lost in translation. Ali's translation, "The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an", has 6310 footnotes - some of which are 2 pages long! It doesn't hurt to read it in English, though, provided you understand that some things don't translate well from semetic languages to germanic ones. I think I gave a long-winded explanation of that somewhere in these forums concerning translation of Hebrew into English ....

Allah chose to give Qur'an in Arabic, so, yeah, it's a good idea to eventually (if interested) learn it that way. If you have no desire to become Muslim, though, I doubt it would be as important.

In order to come to grips with what I've done, I now say that there's absolutely no reason for it, and I did it because it was enjoyable. There's no other rational explanation.

Maybe there's been too much peace for too long. No real World War to get everyone off. So now we're all going to do the Rwanda thing in the streets, and afterwards, we'll pontificate about how our "jihad" or "massacre" was justified.

I suggest also that before you talk about the justification for killing, that you try it first. You'll quickly find that you probably like it, and that the justification really wasn't necessary.

If you are not on active duty please go to the VA and see a doctor. If you are still on active duty please go see your doctor. Anyone who comes to the conclusion that killing, even in war where it is justified, is "enjoyable" needs counsleing. I am not putting you down. I too have served in a war.

Thank you very much for your service.

Actually, I'm confused here. Are you saying that in certain situations you chose to kill even if it wasn't necessary?

In combat, you kill because someone is trying to kill you.

[QUOTE=TcherbebWho the hell are you going to convince with this kind of drivel? All I'm sayin' is, READ THE FUCKING SOURCE. CLICK ON THE FUCKING LINK. If you're not even willing to verify if my sources are utter bullshit or something that might provide you food for thought, then you are unable to participate in a discussion.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry I can't hear you. Someone is cussing, yelling, and screraming. :headbang:

It was a reply to Keruvalia's comment about brotherhood rather than a reply to the the topic. All imperialism is a stain on the human race. I agree that in some states where the majority of the population are Muslims, the governments in power have oppressive and repressive policies. However, I would blame these governments. Some of them are theocracies, some of them are not.
Somehow I must have missed that it was a response. My jury is still out on Islamic states but it is leaning toward distrust. But then what sane person trusts any government?

For that very reason, actually.

The world has known for a good 1500 years now that wherever Christians go, they tend to make every possible effort to convert everyone else to their way. 1500 years, man. You can't argue with obvious history.

The conversions always happen through subjugation, fear mongering, deception, and - if all else fails - brute force. Certain countries, like Saudi Arabia, want to preserve its citizens religious freedom, hence, its customs are going to eye with suspicion any member of a religion that devotes much of its practice to the conversion of others (whether they like it or not).

Now, you may be saying to yourself that not having your Bible would not stop you from preaching to anyone within earshot (if you were the preaching type, I'm not saying you are, but work with me). The Muslims view the Qur'an differently than Christians view the Bible. Muslims believe Qur'an to be the final holy word of Allah and even when printed it becomes something spectacular and Muslims make sure their Qur'an is never at the same level as their feet and, when not in use, is covered by a cloth and no other book stacked on top of it; conversely, Christians see the Bible as a subjective pursuit and can often be seen making notes in margins and using highlighters on passages, etc etc. Cultural difference, I suppose, but that's why you had your Bible taken.

Your crucifix is something else. It depicts a human sacrifice, which is an abomination in Islam.

You have not idea of what you speak. Saudi Arabia will not let a bible into the country because they are afraid their people may read it and convert. They are afraid to allow their people to have the knowledge of what is happening in the world because it may corrupt them. On the other hand, they want the West to come to their country to do what they are unable to do. They love the freedom of the West while they put down the Western values that allow that freedom. They begged the West to help them out when Iraq was massed on their border and now critisize the West for doing what they would not and could not do. In short, they are a bunch of hypocrites.

Oh, I know you do not live in Saudi Arabia, unless you are a member of the Royal Family, as the common citizens are not allowed to have the internet.

You have not idea of what you speak. Saudi Arabia will not let a bible into the country because they are afraid their people may read it and convert. They are afraid to allow their people to have the knowledge of what is happening in the world because it may corrupt them.

How many times do I have to say this ...

Islam recognizes the divinity of the Gospel. Jesus is one of the prophets in Islam. Muslims generally read the Gospel ... even in Saudi Arabia!

For that very reason, actually.

The world has known for a good 1500 years now that wherever Christians go, they tend to make every possible effort to convert everyone else to their way. 1500 years, man. You can't argue with obvious history.

The conversions always happen through subjugation, fear mongering, deception, and - if all else fails - brute force. Certain countries, like Saudi Arabia, want to preserve its citizens religious freedom, hence, its customs are going to eye with suspicion any member of a religion that devotes much of its practice to the conversion of others (whether they like it or not).

Now, you may be saying to yourself that not having your Bible would not stop you from preaching to anyone within earshot (if you were the preaching type, I'm not saying you are, but work with me). The Muslims view the Qur'an differently than Christians view the Bible. Muslims believe Qur'an to be the final holy word of Allah and even when printed it becomes something spectacular and Muslims make sure their Qur'an is never at the same level as their feet and, when not in use, is covered by a cloth and no other book stacked on top of it; conversely, Christians see the Bible as a subjective pursuit and can often be seen making notes in margins and using highlighters on passages, etc etc. Cultural difference, I suppose, but that's why you had your Bible taken.

Your crucifix is something else. It depicts a human sacrifice, which is an abomination in Islam.

Keruvalia, you just made me regret that I had a busy afternoon and evening. Had I known you were going to spread so much obvious bullshit I would have had you over to winterize my backyard.

The jury's in. Sorry, but you just lost the case. Now who's going to clean up this place?

Islam is notoriously NOT a religion of peace. The sword of Islam is NOT an image imposed upon it by the west. Saudi Arabia, SAUDI FREEKIN ARABIA finds capital punishment an abomination?

Somebody call EMS and oull me out of this strawberry patch!

Keruvalia, you just made me regret that I had a bust afternoon and evening. Had I known you were going to spread so much obvious bullshit I would have had you over to winterize my backyard.

The jury's in. Sorry, but you just lost the case. Now who's going to clean up this place?

You gonna give reasons for that or just your opinion? What did I say that was bullshit?

I gave no list of countries.

Oh ... are you a Saudi citizen? Why would you get to enjoy the benefits of Saudi citizenship just because you came into the country? :sniper:

Why do Saudi citizens who come to America get to enjoy th benevits of American citizenship? Things like freedom of religion, freedom of speach, etc, etc.

How many times do I have to say this ...

Islam recognizes the divinity of the Gospel. Jesus is one of the prophets in Islam. Muslims generally read the Gospel ... even in Saudi Arabia!

When were you in Saudi Arabia and how long did you stay there?

:sniper:

Why do Saudi citizens who come to America get to enjoy th benevits of American citizenship? Things like freedom of religion, freedom of speach, etc, etc.


Because ... and once again ... Saudi Arabia != USA

Remember our original national motto ... the one before they decided to go with "In God We Trust" in the 1950s? It was "E Pluribus Unum" ... one out of many.

It was from a time when Americans understood that they were but one country with one set of ideas out of the many in the world.

Guess we lost our way somewhere.

Got some real, well documented, historical proof of that and can you correlate it to what is written in Qur'an?
Can you find a basis for the crusades in the NT?

When were you in Saudi Arabia and how long did you stay there?

I was there, off and on, for about 14 months in 1991-1992. I even saw people with *gasp* Bibles! I even went into a synagogue or two.

Can you find a basis for the crusades in the NT?


I'm sorry ... did I mention the Crusades?

Anyway ... Revelation 14:13 "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord" is often cited as a reason for Christian martyrdom and was used as partial justification for the Crusades.

Also, if you get a chance, read History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Volume V, Chapter 7, § 58

With all this talk of Saudi Arabia, I thought I'd point out a couple of things:


1] Islamists openly challenge the Saud dynasty with its 6000 Princes for decadent and corrupt lifestyle.

2] The Committee for the Defence of Legitimate Rights under the professor of physics Muhammad Massari is a militant Islamist Saudi opposition. His movement is well-funded by rich members of the clandestine opposition. Another opposition movement is being funded by Ussama Ibn Ladin (Osama bin Laden) and operates from Sudan and Afghanistan.

As you can see ... even the most extreme Muslims are anti-Saud.
I'm pretty sure you are being a master of the obvious. Exchanging one malefactor for another makes none better. They all rot.

So the same thing could be applied to Jews and Catholics and Evangelists? Nobody knows who or what God has it in for and anyone who claims to is trying to sell you something.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. I don't think God has it in for us anymore than God is punishing all of the missing and exploited children in the world.
McDonald's is the biggest burger joint in the world. That doesn't make it nutritious.

It is an unfair restriction, but does not demonstrate, as Neo has stated numerous times, that someone can "be arrested just for being Christian."

One doesn't need the Bible there to worship.
The origin of the comments by Neo (and others) was the contention that Islamic states (there was a lengthy list back in the single digits) had freedom of religion. Keru and a few others have opined that it is so and they demanded proof otherwise. Nitpicking Neo, when MGNY has nailed it, is just foolish.

So let me get this straight. Keru and some other people are arguing based on ideas and word of mouth alone-no sources being listed.

Sorry folks, but seeing as Keru is the, you know, member of his religion, unless you start making with the sources I'm gonna be on his side.



And, for the twenty bajillionth time, the problem isn't muslims. It' not Islamic states. The problem is theocracies, period.

My favorite part is when Neo quotes half of my sentance. He left half of the bloody sentance behind when quoting me. Dude, at least BOLD the part of the sentance while still keeping the whole thing there. No need to be completely dishonest.

Originally Posted by Neo Cannen
- Read the BibleYou can't *import* the Bible. If you cannot import the bible then you can't read it, can you?



Originally Posted by Neo Cannen
- Worship GodWorship does not require a church. You speak for all Christian denominations and the Catholics or just your own view here? It's been a really long time but I suspect at least the Catholics see worship as gathering together for mass.



Originally Posted by Neo Cannen
- Spread the word of GodSpreading the word of God does not require proseletysing. It would be interesting to see if your definition of proselytizing would match that of Saudi authorities. I would tend to believe that they take a broader interpretation of the term.

You have not idea of what you speak. Saudi Arabia will not let a bible into the country because they are afraid their people may read it and convert. They are afraid to allow their people to have the knowledge of what is happening in the world because it may corrupt them. On the other hand, they want the West to come to their country to do what they are unable to do. They love the freedom of the West while they put down the Western values that allow that freedom. They begged the West to help them out when Iraq was massed on their border and now critisize the West for doing what they would not and could not do. In short, they are a bunch of hypocrites.

Oh, I know you do not live in Saudi Arabia, unless you are a member of the Royal Family, as the common citizens are not allowed to have the internet.
While on the Saud family. It is interesting to see how they cavort around the world soaking up the western influences, more corrupt than most westerners. I guess they just do an abolution before the plane lands in Jedda.

I'm sorry ... did I mention the Crusades?

Anyway ... Revelation 14:13 "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord" is often cited as a reason for Christian martyrdom and was used as partial justification for the Crusades.

Also, if you get a chance, read History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff, Volume V, Chapter 7, § 58
Cute attempt at a sidestep, but no go. I asked you if you could find a basis for the crusades in the NT. The context is clear. Don't try to sidestep it by making arcane references to someone else's work while referring to snippets of bible references that clearly are not relevant. I have not contended that the Roman church was not corrupt and politics was their true agenda. However Islam does indeed have both a scripture and history of spreading their theology by force. Some Koranic references are in this thread so save yourself the time in trying to twist that as well by demanding I cite them.

You gonna give reasons for that or just your opinion? What did I say that was bullshit?
Alrighty then:

Keru - The world has known for a good 1500 years now that wherever Christians go, they tend to make every possible effort to convert everyone else to their way. 1500 years, man. You can't argue with obvious history.

This is even written in a generalized propagandized style. The world? The whole world has known this since when? 504 AD - at least! Gee, that date sure lets Islam & Muhammed off the hook, eh? PURE CRAP! Please give historical examples to support your claim none dated later than 504 AD.

When exactly was the last time someone was publicly lynched by the KKK?

Over 5,000 people were lynched by the KKK and other Christian Americans between 1930 and 1968. Fingers of the lynched were given as souveneirs; photographs were taken; men were castrated; children and women were also victims.

This was thirty years ago, not two hundred years ago. And it is not over. People are killed in racial hate crimes every day in America - as well as sexual orientation hate crimes - as well as killing people for their religion.

One big thing going on in this post is the people are equating the religion of ISLAM, with the culture of ARABIA. Arab culture has roots that go back further than Islam, and which control such things as women covering their heads and punishment of death (eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth is not Biblical or Koranic, but rather an Arab cultural tradition).

No religion exists in a vacuum - it is practiced within the confines of a culture, which is why Christianity is so different in America than it is in Europe. Until anyone on this post reads the Koran AND the Bible (not so different books, by the way), I don't know what they can say about Islam.

As Evangelical Christians become the more mainstream of the religion, those things will start to occur more regularly.
I disagree whole heartedly because I am a Evegelical Christian and do not personally know any one who condones the killing of anyone who is gay performs abortions or any of the things previously listed....I even tend to find myself slowly growing in oppostion to the death penalty..... I feel that Christ would have loved all...He would have corrected them and told them flat out what they were doing was wrong but He would have wrapped his arms around them and forgave them if they asked....That is the point of evengelical Christainity.....We love not hate.....You may not think so but I know the truth and want to say that the wackos do not speak for the rest of us.....

I disagree whole heartedly because I am a Evegelical Christian and do not personally know any one who condones the killing of anyone who is gay performs abortions or any of the things previously listed....I even tend to find myself slowly growing in oppostion to the death penalty..... I feel that Christ would have loved all...He would have corrected them and told them flat out what they were doing was wrong but He would have wrapped his arms around them and forgave them if they asked....That is the point of evengelical Christainity.....We love not hate.....You may not think so but I know the truth and want to say that the wackos do not speak for the rest of us.....

Love the sinner, hate the sin eh?

OK, first on Saudi Arabia. It is at best disengenuous to claim it has religious freedom. Yes, private worship is allowed but otherwise religious expression is clamped down on for all forms of religion but the State Wahhabi faith. However, it is eqaully disengenuous to point to Christians in an attempt to label it as an Islam vs other faiths issue, all branches of Islam apart from the State sanctioned variety are similarly restricted.

As for other coutries the situation is more mixed than either side really makes clear. Here is a breakdown of muslim-majority states (all info taken from http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countries.htm)

On the free or mostly free side:

Azerbaijan: "traditional" religions (Islam, Russian Orthodoxy and Judaism) are allowed to worship freely but non-traditional religions face minor beaurocratic restrictions.
Turkey: strictly secular but in this respect no more anti-Christian than anti-Islamist, probably the contrary, in fact.
Bahrain: non-muslims free to worship. Islam state controlled
Jordan: Christians and Jews allowed to worship freely.
Kuwait: freedom of worship for Christians; Hindus, Sikhs, Baha'is, and Buddhists can worship but not build places of worship.
Lebanon: freedom of worship guaranteed in the constitution
Oman: all faiths allowed to worship freely
Syria: freedom of worship respected, though mosques are monitored
Algeria: Christian and Jewish communities are not restricted by the government though mosques are tightly controlled
Burkina Faso: Secular state, religious freedom respected
Chad: government is secular, freedom of religion is respected.
Djibouti: freedom of worship respected but government discourages proselytising.
The Gambia: religious freedom guaranteed
Guinea: freedom of religion respected, though Islam is state controlled
Mali: secular government, non-muslim right of worship protected
Morocco: Christians and Jews can worship freely
Niger: freedom of religion respected by government
Nigeria: freedom of religion guaranteed by constitution, some local officials discriminate, though.
Senegal: religious freedom generally respected
Sierra Leone: religious freedom guaranteed in law and respected in practice
Bangladesh: non-muslims are allowed to freely worship by the state, though they face societal discrimination
Kyrgyzstan: freedom of religion generally respected though extremist Islamic groups are monitored.
Malaysia: non-muslims worship freely but some Islamic groups face restrictions
Tajikistan: freedom of religion generally respected though political activism is forbidden


In the middle are:

UAE: freedom of worship for Christians and Jews but proselytising and distributing religious literature is forbidden
Qatar: freedom of private worship (including services) for non-muslims, and 3 churches have recently been built. Non-muslims cannot bring suits in sharia courts, however.
Yemen: non-muslims can worship freely but cannot proselytise or construct places of worship without permit. Jews face employment and residency restrictions.
Egypt: non-muslims are allowed to worship freely but Coptic Christians have had church property seized and face restrictions on building and repairing churches.
Libya: non-muslims are free to worship openly but non-government sanctioned muslim faiths are banned.
Mauritania: by statute all citizens are Sunni muslims. Non-muslim freedom of worship is tolerated privately, however, and some churches operate openly
Tunisia: most non-muslims have freedom of religion but Baha'is cannot practice openly. Islam is state controlled.
Kazakhstan: freedom of religion guaranteed in the constitution but nontraditional groups are sometimes harassed.
Pakistan: though non-Muslims are not offically discriminated against the government has failed to curb unofficial discrimination
Uzbekistan: most major faiths are permitted freedom of religion. Proselytising, teaching of religious subjects and wearing religious garments is forbidden for non-clergy, though. Smaller groups, especially extremist Islamic groups, are harshly restricted

And in the no, or little, freedom camp (along with Saudi Arabia):

Iran: freedom of worship but restrictions on employment, education and property ownership for non-muslims.
Comoros: non-muslims legally allowed to practice but often harassed or even arrested. If arrested sometimes subjected to conversion attempts.
Somalia: religious freedom not guaranteed. Christians face harrasment if open about their faith
Sudan: Christians in the south of the country are systematically persecuted
Brunei: non-muslims cannot proselytise or import religious materials and requests to build or expand temples and churches are ignored.
Turkmenisatan: members of religious organisations not licensed by the state face regular harrasment from security forces

Phew, I'm tired now. Well, make of that what you will.

And you would be willing to legislate pro it without any objective reason.

(a) Wrong. Equal protection is a very objective reason.
(b) It isn't legislating pro-anything, it is simply not legislating anti-something.

Taking away protections requires a reason. Giving the same protection to everyone is a reason in and of itself.

And I said religous freedom and as far as I can see, homosexuality is not a religion.

The belief that homosexuality is "wrong" is a religious belief. In other religions, there is no such belief. By trying to legislate your particular brand of Christianity, you are forcing those who do not feel it is wrong to acquiese to your religion.

Find a Christian nation of today which can arrest muslims purely because they are preching Islam.
two canadian imams were arrested upon attempting to cross the border, their purpose for staying was 'to preach islam'. They were sent back.

If you cannot import the bible then you can't read it, can you?

You can if it is already there, and while it *may* be that there are no Bibles anywhere in the country, no one has shown this to be true. I doubt it anyways, as Keru has pointed out, the teachings of Christ are considered scripture in Islam.

You speak for all Christian denominations and the Catholics or just your own view here? It's been a really long time but I suspect at least the Catholics see worship as gathering together for mass.

Even the strictest Biblical literalist would know that two people can comprise a worship. "Wherever two or three are gathered in my name..."

Personally, I know that worship really only requires one person. Worship and "church service" are not synonymous.

It would be interesting to see if your definition of proselytizing would match that of Saudi authorities. I would tend to believe that they take a broader interpretation of the term.

I don't know about Saudi authorities, but I do know about another Islamic country, Indonesia.

It's a lot easier to call your opponent's bigots than to debate the issues, isn't it.

!!! Exactly my thoughts. This Keruvalia dude is just coming up with things out of their butt. They won't just listen that there are things wrong with Islamic countries and stop defending the wack-jobs who made the dispicable laws in the Islamic countries.

What's your opinion of unbiased? something that whitewashes islam and only shows the positive? The article I linked to was fair, scholarly and unbiased.

*in an obnoxious tone* Duhhhh.

Didn't you know? It's only unbiased if it defends Islam completely.

Just to point this out, I (dont know about others) am criticsing Muslim governments who dont allow religous freedoms. A question, why do Muslim governments not teach comparitive religion? We do that in the UK and in many other European nations but many Muslim states teach Islam as the only true religion as being Islam. Also, why is it illegal to posses Bibles in some states?

They don't want anyone to be anything other than Muslim, is why Bibles are illegal. Along with crucifixs (the whole "we're against human sacrifice is baloney, if they were...something would be done about suicide bombers and such.)

And Jesus is God. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God are as one. The verses from the Holy Bible are total proof. I had a youth pastor at one time who told me, that anyone who says that the Trinity is not real is blind to it and will not see with people telling them verses. They will only see if God allows them to see.

So, in other words, you're wasting your breath telling Keru ANYTHING because he will believe what he wants to, regardless of whether it is the truth or not.

I am sorry? Let me just check this out? The Qu'ran is what gives the Saudi Government the right to arrest and kill Christians in their country just because they are Christians? If that is the case then are not Muslims following a religion that upholds the killing of those who are not of your religion?

Arresting and killing people purely on the basis of religion is breaking basic human rights. We do not believe you can do anything you want and ignore concequences, we have laws you know. We can however practise any faith we want. What is wrong with Non Muslims in Islamic countries? Why should you treat them any diffrently because they are not Muslim?

Doesn't that mean that the Qu'ran says you are to kill non-Muslims? If it is their constitution and they can kill Christians or Jews or what-have-you, that would mean it is in the Qu'ran.

Keru, you just stuck your foot in your mouth and told people that Muslims are told to kill "infidels."

I'm done. Have fun trying to tell people Islam is sooo cool. It's not. If it was, the countries would not say it is okay to kill non-Muslims. They would not ban other beliefs or religions. They would not be despicable and maniacs. I'm not saying all Muslims are, but the majority has to be if the country laws are what they are.

Keru, you just stuck your foot in your mouth and told people that Muslims are told to kill "infidels."


Losing an argument always brings out the puppets.

Doesn't that mean that the Qu'ran says you are to kill non-Muslims? If it is their constitution and they can kill Christians or Jews or what-have-you, that would mean it is in the Qu'ran.

Actually, the Qur'an says that taking a single innocent life is the same as killing the whole world. In Torah, the little thing called "Thou Shalt Not Kill" still applies in Islam.

I'm not sure which part of your ass you managed to pull out that I said the Qur'an says to kill "infidels" but I've never said it. I've actually made two distinct points that nobody has been able to prove wrong:

1] The Qur'an teaches that all people are to be treated with respect and kindness.
2] The word "infidel" isn't used in Qur'an anywhere.

-snip-

http://whyfiles.org/190sport_injury/images/cheerleader.jpg

Actually, the Qur'an says that taking a single innocent life is the same as killing the whole world. In Torah, the little thing called "Thou Shalt Not Kill" still applies in Islam.

I'm not sure which part of your ass you managed to pull out that I said the Qur'an says to kill "infidels" but I've never said it. I've actually made two distinct points that nobody has been able to prove wrong:

1] The Qur'an teaches that all people are to be treated with respect and kindness.
2] The word "infidel" isn't used in Qur'an anywhere.

I agree. Islam is very peaceful, but it does allow jihad, right? So terrorists and the like are merely hiding behind this quirk. However, correct me if I'm wrong, even in jihad women and children are now allowed to be killed. So, with 9/11 and other attacks, terrorist groups are proving themselves to be blasphemers. Wow.

I agree. Islam is very peaceful, but it does allow jihad, right? So terrorists and the like are merely hiding behind this quirk. However, correct me if I'm wrong, even in jihad women and children are now allowed to be killed. So, with 9/11 and other attacks, terrorist groups are proving themselves to be blasphemers. Wow.

Well ... jihad is something everyone goes through every day. The greatest jihad, according to Qur'an, is the jihad between you and yourself to come closer to Allah.

Simple jihads would be things like quitting smoking or taking up knitting. It's a struggle.

The 9/11 attackers murdered the innocent and, thus, according to Qur'an, not gonna be anywhere near Paradise any time soon.

two canadian imams were arrested upon attempting to cross the border, their purpose for staying was 'to preach islam'. They were sent back.

Thats an imigration issue not one of religious freedom. You cant just wander around national borders going in or out as you please (Except in the EU but thats another matter).

(a) Wrong. Equal protection is a very objective reason.
(b) It isn't legislating pro-anything, it is simply not legislating anti-something.


Definition of objective: undistorted by emotion or personal bias

Your idea of freedom is a personal, ideological bias in the same way that my idea of sin is a personal ideological bias. There is no objective practial reason for legislating a bill which allows homosexual marriages, in the same way there is no practical reason to disallow it. It comes down to numbers, you cannot say your opinion of freedom is supiror to my opinion of sin. Both our opinons have sources in what each of us believe is fact. Neither one of us can say "my ideaology is supiror" as neither of us can objectively prove that. Therefore it comes down to numbers


The belief that homosexuality is "wrong" is a religious belief. In other religions, there is no such belief. By trying to legislate your particular brand of Christianity, you are forcing those who do not feel it is wrong to acquiese to your religion.

The belief that foxhunting is wrong is a moral viewpoint. Other groups do not have said moral viewpoint. By trying (and suceding) to legislate your particular brand of moral viewpoint, you are forcing those who do not feel it is wrong to aquiese to your viewpoint.

Definition of objective: undistorted by emotion or personal bias

Your idea of freedom is a personal, ideological bias in the same way that my idea of sin is a personal ideological bias. There is no objective practial reason for legislating a bill which allows homosexual marriages, in the same way there is no practical reason to disallow it. It comes down to numbers, you cannot say your opinion of freedom is supiror to my opinion of sin. Both our opinons have sources in what each of us believe is fact. Neither one of us can say "my ideaology is supiror" as neither of us can objectively prove that. Therefore it comes down to numbersActually, there is a practical reason to allow same-sex marriages. Marriage, according to advocates for the practice, helps stabilize society by creating a stronger bond between two people than simple cohabitation does. It also helps create more stable family units and simplifies some issues like next-of-kin, inheritance, hospital visitation, employee benefits, etc--and a lot of this deals with issues that can't be taken care of by simply seeing a lawyer, because they deal with federal benefits. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would simplify many governmental functions while simultaneously helping strengthen society. It's a net plus.

Actually, there is a practical reason to allow same-sex marriages. Marriage, according to advocates for the practice, helps stabilize society by creating a stronger bond between two people than simple cohabitation does. It also helps create more stable family units and simplifies some issues like next-of-kin, inheritance, hospital visitation, employee benefits, etc--and a lot of this deals with issues that can't be taken care of by simply seeing a lawyer, because they deal with federal benefits. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would simplify many governmental functions while simultaneously helping strengthen society. It's a net plus.

That would be fine, if there were many Gay's who had a monogmous commited relationship, but there arent. The largest study into sexual relationships found that of the population in the British homosexual population, aproximately 0.3% of it wanted to be/had/were involved in any kind of monogmous relationship. So a legal support for the relationship is unesscery as there are so few that would use it. In London where civil partnerships on an almost equal par with marriage have been legalised (Thanks to Ken Livingstone) so far very few people have used them, considering it has been in operation since 2001 under 60 marriage liscenes have been issued.

That would be fine, if there were many Gay's who had a monogmous commited relationship, but there arent. The largest study into sexual relationships found that of the population in the British homosexual population, aproximately 0.3% of it wanted to be/had/were involved in any kind of monogmous relationship. So a legal support for the relationship is unesscery as there are so few that would use it. In London where civil partnerships on an almost equal par with marriage have been legalised (Thanks to Ken Livingstone) so far very few people have used them, considering it has been in operation since 2001 under 60 marriage liscenes have been issued.
You obviously don't know many gays. They run the same gamut of relationships as straight society does--there are people who want nothing more than to nest and there are people who are commitment-phobic, and there are plenty of people in between. When San Francisco legalized same-sex marriage earlier this year, I went down to City Hall to see what was going on, and there were couples lined up around the block three times just to get a marriage license. Massachussetts has issued thousands of marriage licenses in the few months that they've had same-sex marriage as well. So don't tell me there's no demand for them--the evidence proves you wrong or ignorant or both.

This reply is to everyone: The entire point of Neo Cannens' post was to show that in Islam, fanatisicm and mistaken fundamentalism is not on the fringe, as with the KKK and other extremist groups from other religions. It is mainstream, and is taught in schools, enforced by television personalities, and some governments. And to those that believe Neo was being biased, then you must concede that anyone who posts facts to illustrate a point is being biased. That is all.

This reply is to everyone: The entire point of Neo Cannens' post was to show that in Islam, fanatisicm and mistaken fundamentalism is not on the fringe, as with the KKK and other extremist groups from other religions. It is mainstream, and is taught in schools, enforced by television personalities, and some governments. And to those that believe Neo was being biased, then you must concede that anyone who posts facts to illustrate a point is being biased. That is all.

It is not taught in schools nor is it enforced by television personalities. Fanatisicm is not mainstream in Islam and Neo has not shown any facts that prove that it is. Neo can only use bad logic, half quotes, and biased sources.

So ... run along, puppet.

So ... run along, puppet.

Well, you just lost the moral highground didn't you?

This entire thread has been an interesting practical history lesson: note: while those lined up against began by attacking people's character instead of truly debating the issues, now the reciprocation begins.

Come on now people, even though the issue at hand clearly has not been resolved, it is still a little early to resort to personal attacks just yet. I don't think everyone reading this thread is completely convinced one way or the other.

Oh yeah, and everyone talks about Islam being spread by the sword: there's a lot of difference between convert or die, and convert or pay extra taxes. Conversion by the sword was a tactic used by the Christians in dealing with the local poly or pantheistic religions. You probably wouldn't be a Christian if your great, great, great, great, (you get the picture) grandfathers and grandmothers hadn't been told to convert (to a particular sect nonetheless!) or die. Islam wasn't spread by the sword, even if Arabic culture was.

Guess, what monotheism cannot accept polytheism by its very nature, the reason you don't hear too much about the actions of Christianity in the above respect is because there wasn't really any group concerned with what happened to the indigenous barbarians of the north.

Although I am sure that most people just see this as "blah, blah, blah, Christianity is bad, blah blah blah," this is not to say that the current policies of the totalitarian governments that run many Islamic nations are bad, most policies of totalitarian governments are, this is to point out, as I did before, that Islamic dictators are no worse than most other dictators. It's not Islam, its people in power. How else can I put this, since skulls on this thread seem to be thickening to an unparalleled degree (my that was fun)? Any state where most of the power is vested in a small few and that power is difficult to take away = BAD! Also: few jerks running government = bad, lots of jerks running government (*cough* democracy *cough*) = slightly better.

Well, you just lost the moral highground didn't you?

This entire thread has been an interesting practical history lesson: note: while those lined up against began by attacking people's character instead of truly debating the issues, now the reciprocation begins.

Come on now people, even though the issue at hand clearly has not been resolved, it is still a little early to resort to personal attacks just yet. I don't think everyone reading this thread is completely convinced one way or the other.

Oh yeah, and everyone talks about Islam being spread by the sword: there's a lot of difference between convert or die, and convert or pay extra taxes. Conversion by the sword was a tactic used by the Christians in dealing with the local poly or pantheistic religions. You probably wouldn't be a Christian if your great, great, great, great, (you get the picture) grandfathers and grandmothers hadn't been told to convert (to a particular sect nonetheless!) or die. Islam wasn't spread by the sword, even if Arabic culture was.

Guess, what monotheism cannot accept polytheism by its very nature, the reason you don't hear too much about the actions of Christianity in the above respect is because there wasn't really any group concerned with what happened to the indigenous barbarians of the north.

Although I am sure that most people just see this as "blah, blah, blah, Christianity is bad, blah blah blah," this is not to say that the current policies of the totalitarian governments that run many Islamic nations are bad, most policies of totalitarian governments are, this is to point out, as I did before, that Islamic dictators are no worse than most other dictators. It's not Islam, its people in power. How else can I put this, since skulls on this thread seem to be thickening to an unparalleled degree (my that was fun)? Any state where most of the power is vested in a small few and that power is difficult to take away = BAD! Also: few jerks running government = bad, lots of jerks running government (*cough* democracy *cough*) = slightly better.
It was a little worse than convert or pay extra taxes. For instance, since blaspheming the prophet meant a death sentance, and a dhimmi couldn't testify against a muslim in court, his muslim neighbor could come along and threaten to accuse the dhimmi of blasphemy if the dhimmi didn't give up his money, land, daughter, whatever.

Definition of objective: undistorted by emotion or personal bias

The term "equal protection under the law" which is part of the *basis* of the US government. It is undistorted by emotion or personal bias. As it applies to *everyone*, even people I don't like, it has nothing to do with emotion or personal bias. So, yes, it is objective.

There is no objective practial reason for legislating a bill which allows homosexual marriages, in the same way there is no practical reason to disallow it.

Actually, there is, as I have pointed out many times. It is the *exact* same reason for legally recognizing *any* marriage. When two people decide to live as a single entity, they are in a unique situation which necessitates unique protections under the law. These protections are currently provided to some such couples, but not to others (due to a few people's personal bias). Objectively, they have the same need for these protections as those to whom they are provided. Subjectively, a few idiots think they shouldn't have access to these protections because of something their preacher told them.

It comes down to numbers, you cannot say your opinion of freedom is supiror to my opinion of sin. Both our opinons have sources in what each of us believe is fact. Neither one of us can say "my ideaology is supiror" as neither of us can objectively prove that. Therefore it comes down to numbers

*My* viewpoint is the very basis of our legal system.

Of course, if it *all* comes down to numbers, then you cannot say that your viewpoint of religious freedom is superior to the Saudi viewpoint that any religion other than Islam should be discouraged. "Therefore, it comes down to numbers." Guess who has the numbers in Islamic countries?

Your assertion that your religion should be upheld by the law is *exactly* the same as their assertion that they can put *their* religion into law. The degree to which this affects someone may be different, but the idea is *exactly* the same.

The belief that foxhunting is wrong is a moral viewpoint. Other groups do not have said moral viewpoint. By trying (and suceding) to legislate your particular brand of moral viewpoint, you are forcing those who do not feel it is wrong to aquiese to your viewpoint.

You don't read well do you? I have pointed out to you more than once that foxhunting *HURT OTHER PEOPLE*. It took place *AGAINST THEIR WILL* on *THEIR PROPERTY*. It injured *UNINVOLVED PEOPLE*. Therefore, it is not an appropriate analogy. If someone is destryoing your property/endangering your life, you have every right to legislate against what they are doing.

It was a little worse than convert or pay extra taxes. For instance, since blaspheming the prophet meant a death sentance, and a dhimmi couldn't testify against a muslim in court, his muslim neighbor could come along and threaten to accuse the dhimmi of blasphemy if the dhimmi didn't give up his money, land, daughter, whatever.

So someone who abused a legal system could profit immensely? Shocking, simply shocking.

On the other hand, the potential for abuse that was built into the system was fairly standard. It was just that Islamic nations chose to have the facade in the societal standards rather than the actual carraige of justice itself. While the West was more concerned with the imitation of a "fair" trial (see Inquistion, Spanish), the Near East was more concerned with the imitation of "fair" rules (see above quote). Both lead to injustice.

I guess that the only objective way about this is to find out how high the percentage of total wealth confiscated, and how high of a percentage of populations were put to death, as a result of such misconduct.

I imagine that unadulterated figures on this would be impossible to find for either situation. I do know that Europe lost a third of its population in the 17th century over the issue of religion, and that Jews were tossed out of countries fairly often in order for governments to be able to write off debts they couldn't pay. I have no such information on say, the Ottoman empire, so I cannot really do anything about that. And yes, I know about the Armenian genocide, but that wasn't over religion, that was over ethnicity, a divide that even religion finds it damn near impossible to conquer (see United States history, common religion, different ethnicities, lots of conflict).

Actually, there is, as I have pointed out many times. It is the *exact* same reason for legally recognizing *any* marriage. When two people decide to live as a single entity, they are in a unique situation which necessitates unique protections under the law. These protections are currently provided to some such couples, but not to others (due to a few people's personal bias). Objectively, they have the same need for these protections as those to whom they are provided. Subjectively, a few idiots think they shouldn't have access to these protections because of something their preacher told them.


Actually, the entire basis for this argument is wrong. The protection that "married" status gives one was not originally legislated to protect married couples, but to ease the burden on the primary producers of children, although this is not to say that the purpose of marraige is to produce children. The simplest solution is to eliminate such benefit and merely extend it to child-rearing couples. One more point on this issue: legally binding marraige does not necessarily aid a couple. Because they are now a single person, they have to pay taxes on their combined incomes as if it were only one (i.e. two people's combined incomes often move them into a higher tax bracket, meaning that they end up paying higher taxes than if they reported income as individuals).

I know this has nothing to do with the thread. I'm bored and feel like shoving my viewpoint around a little today.

Oh, I know you do not live in Saudi Arabia, unless you are a member of the Royal Family, as the common citizens are not allowed to have the internet.

Huh?

So the 1.5 million internet users in Saudi Arabia are all members of the royal family?

Wow ... big family.

It is an unfair restriction, but does not demonstrate, as Neo has stated numerous times, that someone can "be arrested just for being Christian."
One doesn't need the Bible there to worship.

So, one does not need the Koran to worship? If I am in Saudi and am a Muslim having friends in my house and we pray we will not be arrested. However, if we are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. we can be arrested. So the answer is "You can be arrested just for being a Christian and praying to God.":headbang:

Guess, what monotheism cannot accept polytheism by its very nature, the reason you don't hear too much about the actions of Christianity in the above respect is because there wasn't really any group concerned with what happened to the indigenous barbarians of the north.

Here's an idea, instead of just Islamic theocracies being forced to learn the concept of freedom of religion, why not force all monotheistic theocracies to do so?
Seems they all share the same problems.
Find me a modern polytheistic one.. or for that matter find me an ancient one, not including the Roman persecution of the Christians, that has these freedom of religion problems and we can throw them in there to.

(Roman persecution of christians was, as I understand, started by Nero, and we shouldn't enduldge his dead ego by discussing it).

Nah ... but out of respect, it's a good idea to make abulation before entering the mosque. Washing the hands, face, feet, etc. I don't think it's required, but it's one of those respectful things ... like non-Jewish men putting on a yamulka when entering a synagogue or taking off your shoes at the door of a friend's house who doesn't want dirt on their carpet.

Most people don't have a problem with simple courtesy.

In both Turkey and Saudi Arabia a non-Muslim can not enter the mosque.

Because ... and once again ... Saudi Arabia != USA

Remember our original national motto ... the one before they decided to go with "In God We Trust" in the 1950s? It was "E Pluribus Unum" ... one out of many.

It was from a time when Americans understood that they were but one country with one set of ideas out of the many in the world.

Guess we lost our way somewhere.

:confused: WTF :confused:

I was there, off and on, for about 14 months in 1991-1992. I even saw people with *gasp* Bibles! I even went into a synagogue or two.

You must have been there in your dreams. It darn sure wasn't that way when I was there. What city were you in? There were no synagogues or churches in Riyadh

And, for the twenty bajillionth time, the problem isn't muslims. It' not Islamic states. The problem is theocracies, period.

Are there any theocracies other than Islamic states? I don't know of any, but then I don't know all. :confused:

Are there any theocracies other than Islamic states? I don't know of any, but then I don't know all. :confused:

Vatican City being the most obvious, as it is it's own country and is ruled by the Catholic church.

While on the Saud family. It is interesting to see how they cavort around the world soaking up the western influences, more corrupt than most westerners. I guess they just do an abolution before the plane lands in Jedda.

No, they live in Riyadh so they have a little more time to do than abolition than those living in Jeddah. :p

One big thing going on in this post is the people are equating the religion of ISLAM, with the culture of ARABIA. Arab culture has roots that go back further than Islam, and which control such things as women covering their heads and punishment of death (eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth is not Biblical or Koranic, but rather an Arab cultural tradition).

Saudi culture is the culture of Islam. Both Mecca and Medina are located there. Islam was founded there. The ancient Arabic culture was replaced by the Moslem movement.

They <muslim governments> don't want anyone to be anything other than Muslim, is why Bibles are illegal. Along with crucifixs (the whole "we're against human sacrifice is baloney, if they were...something would be done about suicide bombers and such.)

I posted a list of 25 muslim governments where this is not the case that would tend to contradict this line.


And Jesus is God. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God are as one. The verses from the Holy Bible are total proof.

I'm not even going to begin to say what is wrong with this line of reasoning.

Saudi culture is the culture of Islam. Both Mecca and Medina are located there. Islam was founded there. The ancient Arabic culture was replaced by the Moslem movement.

If Saudi is the culture of Islam then why are there so many muslim governments that are not like the Saudi state?

If Saudi is the culture of Islam then why are there so many muslim governments that are not like the Saudi state?


Not to mention the hundreds of millions of Muslims who aren't Arabic ..... like me ....

That would be fine, if there were many Gay's who had a monogmous commited relationship, but there arent. The largest study into sexual relationships found that of the population in the British homosexual population, aproximately 0.3% of it wanted to be/had/were involved in any kind of monogmous relationship. So a legal support for the relationship is unesscery as there are so few that would use it. In London where civil partnerships on an almost equal par with marriage have been legalised (Thanks to Ken Livingstone) so far very few people have used them, considering it has been in operation since 2001 under 60 marriage liscenes have been issued.

Must be Neo-Cannen posting.... I see randomly invented numbers...

Tell everyone where you found the 0.3% number, Neo.

It's been discredited already in another thread, but you just keep trotting out the same tired 'facts' over and over.

The SURVEY (for that is what it was) only identifies those who, a DECADE ago, among those asked, CHOSE to admit to sexual preference, and how it applied to monogamy.

Also - not to rain on your parade - but the actual NUMBER of licenses granted doesn't determine whether or not the practice is NECESSARY.

You may have noticed that not all heterosexuals marry, either. Even those who live monogamous lifestyles. The fact that 50 gay marriage HAVE taken place under the conditions you show, shows a CLEAR necessity for the practice.

Are there any theocracies other than Islamic states? I don't know of any, but then I don't know all. :confused:

Read your history. The church used to be such a wonderful organization.

Read your history. The church used to be such a wonderful organization.
I think he meant current theocracies, besides the Vatican.

Y'know, what's bugging me about this thread is that we are willing to assume religion is the REASON for the political atmosphere in these extremist coutriess instead of merely the MEANS under which these governments operate. Islam in its extreme is about control as all extremist religions or philosophies are, and most nations where potential political unrest could mar economic incentive (note: most "extreme" Muslim nations are oil-producing territories) use Islam as a means to control resources. Other countries use other "religions": I live in China where I have seen how ideology molds and controls large populations firsthand, despite a stunning lack of religion in the culture.

Saddam Hussein was not particularly religious until he started to lose control of the government immediiately following the first Gulf War. He used Islam to galvanize the population against "secular" insurgencies and stirred up hatred of the Kurds to distract his country from rising civil unrest. Iran's Islamic fundamentalist movement started off as moderate, but quickly became fundamentalist as the former Shah's supporters mounted resistance. Saudi Arabia has also become increasingly more fundalmentalist since its inception as various factions try to topple the delicate Saudi dynasty. What's worse, even within the Saudi royal family there is infighting over who should gain control, and Islam is again being used as a means for justifying the reordering of succession. In Muslim countries where control is either not an issue or is exerted through other means, extremism is relatively low: most majority-Muslim countries in West Africa Tunisia come to mind as non-extremist states. There are extremists operating in these countries, and they are on the rise, much as fundamentalists are on the rise in the US, but the amount of violence associated with Islam there is still quite low, comparable to domestic terrorism in the US and Europe.

In other words, religion is an excuse for violence and extremism, not a reason. Such has been and is true amongst other religions in other countries as well. To simply write off extremism as a relgious issue is dangerously short-sighted. Perhaps if some of the social issues leading to extremism are addressed, some of the unrest in these "fundamentalist" countries could be abated, but that will be increasingly difficult as we allow religion to take a foothold in the issues surrounding social unrest and political dissatisfaction. The fact that this article was so short-sighted tells me that our analyses are going entirely in the wrong direction.

Ge-Ren

Excellent food for thought Ge-Ren. Very good.

Y'know, what's bugging me about this thread is that we are willing to assume religion is the REASON for the political atmosphere in these extremist coutriess instead of merely the MEANS under which these governments operate. Islam in its extreme is about control as all extremist religions or philosophies are, and most nations where potential political unrest could mar economic incentive (note: most "extreme" Muslim nations are oil-producing territories) use Islam as a means to control resources. Other countries use other "religions": I live in China where I have seen how ideology molds and controls large populations firsthand, despite a stunning lack of religion in the culture.

Saddam Hussein was not particularly religious until he started to lose control of the government immediiately following the first Gulf War. He used Islam to galvanize the population against "secular" insurgencies and stirred up hatred of the Kurds to distract his country from rising civil unrest. Iran's Islamic fundamentalist movement started off as moderate, but quickly became fundamentalist as the former Shah's supporters mounted resistance. Saudi Arabia has also become increasingly more fundalmentalist since its inception as various factions try to topple the delicate Saudi dynasty. What's worse, even within the Saudi royal family there is infighting over who should gain control, and Islam is again being used as a means for justifying the reordering of succession. In Muslim countries where control is either not an issue or is exerted through other means, extremism is relatively low: most majority-Muslim countries in West Africa Tunisia come to mind as non-extremist states. There are extremists operating in these countries, and they are on the rise, much as fundamentalists are on the rise in the US, but the amount of violence associated with Islam there is still quite low, comparable to domestic terrorism in the US and Europe.

In other words, religion is an excuse for violence and extremism, not a reason. Such has been and is true amongst other religions in other countries as well. To simply write off extremism as a relgious issue is dangerously short-sighted. Perhaps if some of the social issues leading to extremism are addressed, some of the unrest in these "fundamentalist" countries could be abated, but that will be increasingly difficult as we allow religion to take a foothold in the issues surrounding social unrest and political dissatisfaction. The fact that this article was so short-sighted tells me that our analyses are going entirely in the wrong direction.

Ge-Ren

For another example, look at Father Bush - ex-alcoholic, ex-coke-addict, criminal record, ex-girlfriend who he made have an abortion, post middle-aged atheist, with links to the oil industry and the House of Saud.

+ Politics

= "Appointed by god to fight the threat of terror in the middle east", and a policy of christian fundamentalism and racial seperatism.

Because some countries, like some people, rely on tradition rather than law. Qur'an says that women should cover everything but their faces and hands when in the Mosque - out of respect for Allah - and when travelling abroad - to set themselves apart as Muslims. Men cover their heads and wear long sleeves and long pants in the Mosque as well and modesty in dress is a part of Islamic daily life.

There were Arabs and Arabic countries prior to Muhammed(pbuh) and some of those countries still cling to the old pre-Islamic ways - such as female circumsicion (mutilation), restriction of women's freedoms, and even great sadness at the birth of a daughter! None of that is endorsed by Islam nor commanded by Allah ... quite the opposite, in fact. I mean ... c'mon ... look at my sig ... I'm about as pinko-liberal hippie as one can get ... yet I have embraced Islam ... you think I'd do that knowing it would make my wife - whom I love with all my heart and who is the best person I know - a second class citizen?

Questions are always good. Never be afraid to ask questions.


False find me the part of that Koran that says you must cover yourself.
That was invented by the Preists and lawmakers of Islam. This was done to stop Arabs from raping woman. This way you could tell Prositutes from good woman. So it was a secular policy converted into a religious one by a falisy.

False find me the part of that Koran that says you must cover yourself.
That was invented by the Preists and lawmakers of Islam. This was done to stop Arabs from raping woman. This way you could tell Prositutes from good woman. So it was a secular policy converted into a religious one by a falisy.
I seem to remember Muhammad taking a woman and his people wondering if she would be a wife or just a slave. They decided if she covered up she was a wife, if she didn't, a slave. I probably mangled the story, and I think it's from the hadith.

I live in China where I have seen how ideology molds and controls large populations firsthand, despite a stunning lack of religion in the culture.


Whereabouts in China are you?

Excellent post, BTW.

False find me the part of that Koran that says you must cover yourself.

24:31

For another example, look at Father Bush - ex-alcoholic, ex-coke-addict, criminal record, ex-girlfriend who he made have an abortion, post middle-aged atheist, with links to the oil industry and the House of Saud.

+ Politics

= "Appointed by god to fight the threat of terror in the middle east", and a policy of christian fundamentalism and racial seperatism.

Interesting question What evidence besides one or two uses of the word "Crusade" in speeches has anybody got that George W Bush is fighting a religious war?

Interesting question What evidence besides one or two uses of the word "Crusade" in speeches has anybody got that George W Bush is fighting a religious war?
he said he consulted god before going into iraq

i guess he was having a nice conversation with a burning house plant

What strikes me as so amusing about the current arguement going on about Saudi Arabia comes down to this attitude:

"I'm an American Christian and that means I should be able to go wherever I want, pray wherever I want, and bring my Bible wherever I damn where want to and no foreign government has the right to tell me otherwise."

Yet here's the funny thing. I'm American and I live in America and knowing that it's that same attitude that got my people slaughtered and driven off their lands if you come into my house with Bible in tow and start praying, I'll shoot you in the back of the head. Jail? Nah ... you broke in and were about to rape my daughters. My wife is a witness.

So ... being an American Christian does not give you free license to stomp around the world with Jesus ordained impunity. It's a concept you really need to understand or you will never get along with the rest of the world.

If you think you can't take your Bible to Saudi Arabia and you think you can't pray to Jesus in Saudi Arabia or whatever then here's a clue for you: DON'T GO TO SAUDI ARABIA!

There ... was that so hard?

no no shhhh! they can go to saudi arabia and pray whereever they want, hey lets give them a free plane ride there
shh

no no shhhh! they can go to saudi arabia and pray whereever they want, hey lets give them a free plane ride there
shh

*tee hee* Groups of 100 at a time until they're all gone, you say? I like it!

I just love seeing how it eats them alive that there's somewhere in the world they can't go to "spread the word". I wonder if there are any countries that have banned Islam ... have to look.

"I'm an American Christian and that means I should be able to go wherever I want, pray wherever I want, and bring my Bible wherever I damn where want to and no foreign government has the right to tell me otherwise."


1) I am British. Christianity like Islam is something that traverses national boundrys. Dont generalise.

2) Freedom of religion is a human right. Since humans are in all countries no national goverment has the right to control it.

3) Islam is of a very simmilar mindset. Many Muslims expect open arms to them across the world, and treet even the tinyest misgiving about them as bigoted racism of the most horrific nature.


If you think you can't take your Bible to Saudi Arabia and you think you can't pray to Jesus in Saudi Arabia or whatever then here's a clue for you: DON'T GO TO SAUDI ARABIA!

There ... was that so hard?

4) Part of being a Chrstian is spreading the word of God. I expect a simmilar truth can be found in Islam. Christians are not going to say "Oh it looks like it will be harder there, we wont go there" because they believe that everyone needs to hear.

he said he consulted god before going into iraq


So? I consult God before I do a great number of things. I ask for guidence and wisdom about issues. As I expect he did. Certianly in his position he needs all the guidence he can get.

1) I am British. Christianity like Islam is something that traverses national boundrys. Dont generalise.

Yes ... but your attitude of impunity is very American.

2) Freedom of religion is a human right. Since humans are in all countries no national goverment has the right to control it.

Since rights are granted by governments there is no such thing as a human right.

3) Islam is of a very simmilar mindset. Many Muslims expect open arms to them across the world, and treet even the tinyest misgiving about them as bigoted racism of the most horrific nature.

Not really and I'll make my point in my answer to your #4 ...

4) Part of being a Chrstian is spreading the word of God. I expect a simmilar truth can be found in Islam. Christians are not going to say "Oh it looks like it will be harder there, we wont go there" because they believe that everyone needs to hear.

Believe me ... they've heard it. They rejected it. Deal with it and leave them alone. Islam believes in spreading its message and Muslims are commanded to talk about Islam and Allah, but if a person hears and rejects, we are commanded to then leave them alone.

Christianity seems to believe that you keep telling them over and over again until they wear down and give in.

Interesting question What evidence besides one or two uses of the word "Crusade" in speeches has anybody got that George W Bush is fighting a religious war?

"the terrorists hate the fact that ... we can worship Almighty God the way we see fit, and that the United States was called to bring God's gift of liberty to every human being in the world."

(Opryland, Nashville)

Just off the top of my head - I'll keep thinking, though.

Considering freedom of religion is a strictly American concept, Muslim nations neither have to accept, agree to, or practice and/or follow it. :rolleyes:

I thought the article + topic was written by someone in the UK, so how can it be a strictly American concept????

"the terrorists hate the fact that ... we can worship Almighty God the way we see fit, and that the United States was called to bring God's gift of liberty to every human being in the world."


You forgot the part where he said, "unless you're gay". ;)

Actually, the entire basis for this argument is wrong. The protection that "married" status gives one was not originally legislated to protect married couples, but to ease the burden on the primary producers of children, although this is not to say that the purpose of marraige is to produce children.

Original legislation means nothing. The *vast* majority of the current marriage protections have *nothing* to do with children. Therefore, one cannot argue that the *current* legal institution of marriage is there for that purpose.

The simplest solution is to eliminate such benefit and merely extend it to child-rearing couples.

If they were only going to extend protections to child-rearing couples, I would object, as most of the marriage protections are there to protect the marred couple, not any possible children, and this would do away with said protections. However, as long as they extended said benefits *equally* to *all* child-rearing couples, it would not be unconstitutional to do so.

One more point on this issue: legally binding marraige does not necessarily aid a couple. Because they are now a single person, they have to pay taxes on their combined incomes as if it were only one (i.e. two people's combined incomes often move them into a higher tax bracket, meaning that they end up paying higher taxes than if they reported income as individuals).

(a) A married couple is not *required* to file taxes together. They often do because it is more convenient. But yes, you are right that *federal* (and some state) taxes tend to be higher for married couples.
(b) The vast majority of marriage protections are just that: marriage protections. The few things that may be difficult (like the tax brackets) are well worth it to many couples.

Yes ... but your attitude of impunity is very American.


Irelevent. Please apologise for the genralisation. Not all Christians are American in the same way not all Muslims are Saudi Arabian


Since rights are granted by governments there is no such thing as a human right.


See the UN Declaration on Human rights

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

And Saudi Arabia is a member of the UN as of 24th of October 1945


Believe me ... they've heard it. They rejected it. Deal with it and leave them alone. Islam believes in spreading its message and Muslims are commanded to talk about Islam and Allah, but if a person hears and rejects, we are commanded to then leave them alone.

Christianity seems to believe that you keep telling them over and over again until they wear down and give in.

Given the level of religious censorship in Saudia Arabia I very much doubt that. However I would again ask you to retract your genralisation that all Christainty is of the "Pester Power" belief mindset. And what about the fact that in Saudi Arabia if you convert from Islam you can expect a beheading that is sanctioned by the law. If they do convert they are rather quickly silenced.

So, one does not need the Koran to worship? If I am in Saudi and am a Muslim having friends in my house and we pray we will not be arrested. However, if we are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. we can be arrested. So the answer is "You can be arrested just for being a Christian and praying to God.":headbang:

No one has shown any law that demonstrates this emotive statement to be true.

I thought the article + topic was written by someone in the UK, so how can it be a strictly American concept????

You are quite right it was. And further more, article 18 of the UN declaration of human rights grants freedom of religion to everyone. Its not just an American concept, it is a human concept. You should have the right to believe whatever you want.

No one has shown any law that demonstrates this emotive statement to be true.

If you convert from Islam to Christianity or any other religon in Saudia Arabia you can be arrested and be beheaded.

"the terrorists hate the fact that ... we can worship Almighty God the way we see fit, and that the United States was called to bring God's gift of liberty to every human being in the world."

(Opryland, Nashville)

Just off the top of my head - I'll keep thinking, though.

Interesting. What was in the part though where you put the "..." out of curiosity. And freedom is not purely a religious concept.

24:31
Specific words please. Don't just use part of it either use whole phrases.

Irelevent. Please apologise for the genralisation. Not all Christians are American in the same way not all Muslims are Saudi Arabian

My statement was about the attitude of impunity, which you clearly have, so I will not apologise.



See the UN Declaration on Human rights

I don't see anywhere in that which says you have the right to travel as you please or live wherever you want to live.


However I would again ask you to retract your genralisation that all Christainty is of the "Pester Power" belief mindset.

No. Wherever Christianity goes, it makes every effort to destroy the religious beliefs and cultural ideaologies of those who were already there. While it may not be in the doctrine, it is in the practice.

And what about the fact that in Saudi Arabia if you convert from Islam you can expect a beheading that is sanctioned by the law. If they do convert they are rather quickly silenced.

What about it? It's a Saudi law and, as an American, not a law that affects me in any way. The Saudi government can run itself the way it wants. If the people didn't like it or felt it was so oppressive, they can revolt at any time.

There ... was that so hard?

Now, now Keruvalia, you have detailed your own personal spiritual journey which led you to Islam. Would you deny others the same access to a spiritual journey and the opportunity to possibly come to different conclusions than you? I doubt that you would.

Now, while we all know that while any theocracy is its own country and that anyone who travels there and breaks their laws must take the consequences, I don't think it is objectively wrong to point out that their laws restricting religion are wrong. After all, it restricts *anyone* in the country from having access to true spirituality. Those who believe something different from the ruling class must hide it (at least to a point) or face possible punishment. Those who have been raised to believe it have never had the opportunity to truly question their religion, and thus can never have true faith.

You forgot the part where he said, "unless you're gay". ;)

Or a liberal.
Or a communist.
Or a socialist.
Or a single-mother.
Or a member of a minority race.
Or a member of a minority religion.

etc.etc.etc.

Specific words please. Don't just use part of it either use whole phrases.

Oy ... 24:30-31

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss. "

However I would again ask you to retract your genralisation that all Christainty is of the "Pester Power" belief mindset.

Says the person who disagreed that proseletyzing is not necessary for witnessing.

And what about the fact that in Saudi Arabia if you convert from Islam you can expect a beheading that is sanctioned by the law. If they do convert they are rather quickly silenced.

You have yet to demonstrate any proof of this statement. It may be true, but for all I know, you may be making it up (or maybe you heard it from some extremist newspaper).

I don't think it is objectively wrong to point out that their laws restricting religion are wrong.

I submit that it is not wrong to point out that the laws are wrong. It is wrong, however, to demand that they change it if you're not even a citizen of the country in question. It would be the same thing as demanding you be able to crap on my carpet in my home because your particular brand of god decrees it or because since that's what you do in your home it must, therefore, be proper in mine.

Interesting. What was in the part though where you put the "..." out of curiosity. And freedom is not purely a religious concept.

No... but some might argue that "god" is. :)

If the Christians read the Bible they wouldn't be racist. I agree with Neo Cannen. This view gets pushed aside and is not shown as often as it needs to be.

Jesus on Race and Racism (from Matthew 15:21-28):

And Jesus having come forth thence, withdrew to the parts of Tyre and Sidon, and lo, a woman, a Canaanitess, from those borders having come forth, did call to him, saying, `Deal kindly with me, Sir -- Son of David; my daughter is miserably demonized.'

And he did not answer her a word; and his disciples having come to him, were asking him, saying -- `Let her away, because she crieth after us;' and he answering said, `I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'

And having come, she was bowing to him, saying, `Sir, help me;' and he answering said, `It is not good to take the children's bread, and to cast to the little dogs.'

And she said, `Yes, sir, for even the little dogs do eat of the crumbs that are falling from their lords' table;' then answering, Jesus said to her, `O woman, great [is] thy faith, let it be to thee as thou wilt;' and her daughter was healed from that hour.

I submit that it is not wrong to point out that the laws are wrong. It is wrong, however, to demand that they change it if you're not even a citizen of the country in question. It would be the same thing as demanding you be able to crap on my carpet in my home because your particular brand of god decrees it or because since that's what you do in your home it must, therefore, be proper in mine.

Actually we can demand that the laws are changed since we have proven that Saudi Arabia is in violation of article 2, 5, 15, 18, 20 and 21 of the UN convention of human rights.

Actually we can demand that the laws are changed since we have proven that Saudi Arabia is in violation of article 2, 5, 15, 18, 20 and 21 of the UN convention of human rights.

Demand all you want, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. The UN told the US not to invade Iraq, yet there we are.

Hell ... doesn't anyone actually listen to the UN anymore?

"I'm an American Christian and that means I should be able to go wherever I want, pray wherever I want, and bring my Bible wherever I damn where want to and no foreign government has the right to tell me otherwise."

So ... being an American Christian does not give you free license to stomp around the world with Jesus ordained impunity. It's a concept you really need to understand or you will never get along with the rest of the world.

The original post was, "Freedom of Religion. A concept that Muslim nations need to understand."

I do beleive you just made the point. They don't understand freedom of religion. :)

Oy ... 24:30-31

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children Bliss. "

Isn't that comdemning vainful actions more than saying that you should just cover yourself?
But at least you stated the words, I thank for that.

Demand all you want, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. The UN told the US not to invade Iraq, yet there we are.

Hell ... doesn't anyone actually listen to the UN anymore?

Hell... will the governments with the most to lose by obeying the UN do so, or refuse on the grounds of being a "soverign nation" and a resistance to "globalization?"

This is my view on religion. All religion. It is pious. By that I mean they preach one thing, say one thing but act another. It's true. Christians during the slaver trade and crusades didn't mind it because they used bible qoutes to back up their views. You can misinterprete and mainipulate any bible qouite to your advantage. Likewise muslim car bombers preach not to kill but bomb people. The only religion that isn't pious is Buddhism. Even Sikhism and Hinduism are very, very pious. Hindus wage a war aginst pakistan but yet preach about peace. Sikhs hate killing but yet ha dtheir own army!! BUT it's alla bout minorities. A MINORITY of Muslims are terrorists, a MINORITY of Christains are racist or pious just like the KKK or the Crusaders. Religion can be mainupulated or used as an excuse. You really think people bomb each other in Ireland because of religion?? No, it's about whther they ar epart of Britain or not. You think we invaded Iraq to get rid of a corrupt dicataorship because were such good christains?? No, it's about oil..You think 9/11 happened because of religion??? No, it happened because of money and hatred of america! Religion can be used wrongly, or used as an excuse to an individuals advantage but remeber it's only the minority who do it..True Muslims arn't terrorists, true Chrsitains arn't racist, true Hindus don't hate Pakistanis..Etc, ETc. It's all about putting on a false face for support and popularity. The Papal State used God as a reasont to invade places but it wasn't God';s voice it was mans. People often use religion wrongly accidently. like some Iews believe it is their right to occu[y Isreal, and some do it on purpose like people using qoutes from the bible to back up slavery just so that on the sly they could make a profit. All of it is evil and sinful but it happenes...It's life..

Demand all you want, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. The UN told the US not to invade Iraq, yet there we are.

Hell ... doesn't anyone actually listen to the UN anymore?

The convention on Human rights and the security concil are very diffrent things. Very, very few members violate as many articles of it as Saudi Arabia.

This is my view on religion. All religion. It is pious. By that I mean they preach one thing, say one thing but act another.

Big mistake that many have made in the past so I will explain to you. What you described were the actions of religious followers, not religions. Religions are belief systems, moral codes, lifestyles, metaphysics and many other things in one. Religious followers chose to use this to their advantage. And to your point on the Crusades, (people often make this mistake too) the Crusades were a territoral conflict. The Saracans had occupied the land of the Europeans in Jerusleum and other places and so the Europeans went to get it back. To ignore it would be like the British government ignoring the IRA annexing Liverpool.

I submit that it is not wrong to point out that the laws are wrong. It is wrong, however, to demand that they change it if you're not even a citizen of the country in question. It would be the same thing as demanding you be able to crap on my carpet in my home because your particular brand of god decrees it or because since that's what you do in your home it must, therefore, be proper in mine.

I don't know about this either.

I don't think it is wrong for people to go to Sudan and tell them that they cannot commit genocide. Same with *any* genocide or wholesale removal of personal freedoms.

Of course, when people aren't dying left and right, there are much better ways to go about this than simply walking in and saying "Change or we kill you!"

What about it? It's a Saudi law and, as an American, not a law that affects me in any way. The Saudi government can run itself the way it wants. If the people didn't like it or felt it was so oppressive, they can revolt at any time.

It is in the Koran. Converting to another religion is blasphemy, which is punishable by death. Salmon Rushdie was accused of blasphemy and that is why the Islamic religious leaders put out a Fatwa to kill him.

This is my view on religion. All religion. It is pious. By that I mean they preach one thing, say one thing but act another. It's true. Christians during the slaver trade and crusades didn't mind it because they used bible qoutes to back up their views. You can misinterprete and mainipulate any bible qouite to your advantage. Likewise muslim car bombers preach not to kill but bomb people. The only religion that isn't pious is Buddhism. Even Sikhism and Hinduism are very, very pious. Hindus wage a war aginst pakistan but yet preach about peace. Sikhs hate killing but yet ha dtheir own army!! BUT it's alla bout minorities. A MINORITY of Muslims are terrorists, a MINORITY of Christains are racist or pious just like the KKK or the Crusaders. Religion can be mainupulated or used as an excuse. You really think people bomb each other in Ireland because of religion?? No, it's about whther they ar epart of Britain or not. You think we invaded Iraq to get rid of a corrupt dicataorship because were such good christains?? No, it's about oil..You think 9/11 happened because of religion??? No, it happened because of money and hatred of america! Religion can be used wrongly, or used as an excuse to an individuals advantage but remeber it's only the minority who do it..True Muslims arn't terrorists, true Chrsitains arn't racist, true Hindus don't hate Pakistanis..Etc, ETc. It's all about putting on a false face for support and popularity. The Papal State used God as a reasont to invade places but it wasn't God';s voice it was mans. People often use religion wrongly accidently. like some Iews believe it is their right to occu[y Isreal, and some do it on purpose like people using qoutes from the bible to back up slavery just so that on the sly they could make a profit. All of it is evil and sinful but it happenes...It's life..

Very, very well said. Thank you.

It is in the Koran. Converting to another religion is blasphemy, which is punishable by death. Salmon Rushdie was accused of blasphemy and that is why the Islamic religious leaders put out a Fatwa to kill him.

I'm gonna do to you what Bastard Sword did to me ...

You say it's in Qur'an, surah and ayyiah please. Show me where in Qur'an that it says to kill Muslims who convert away to something else. Show me where condemning Rushdie to death is sanctioned in Islam.

Big mistake that many have made in the past so I will explain to you. What you described were the actions of religious followers, not religions. Religions are belief systems, moral codes, lifestyles, metaphysics and many other things in one. Religious followers chose to use this to their advantage. And to your point on the Crusades, (people often make this mistake too) the Crusades were a territoral conflict. The Saracans had occupied the land of the Europeans in Jerusleum and other places and so the Europeans went to get it back. To ignore it would be like the British government ignoring the IRA annexing Liverpool.

The Crusades were a territorial conflict... and a religious conflict - it was the Christian churches seizing the Holy Land from the Infidels.

I like the way you say that the Saracens had 'occupied the land of the Europeans in Jerusalem'... neatly ignoring the fact that Europeans are not native to Jerusalem, and that the Saracen forces that Christians fought had a much more legitimate 'territorial' claim to the area.

What is it about Christians that they have to absolve the whole bloody history from the hands of the church - even the parts that are indefensible?

Interesting question What evidence besides one or two uses of the word "Crusade" in speeches has anybody got that George W Bush is fighting a religious war?

Well, Bush himself... I am looking for a specific quote by a presidential aide, (where the aide repeats a conversation in which Bush said that he had been 'appointed' by god, to lead America through these troubled times... i.e. Iraq and the War on Terror.) which I have yet to be able to locate... but I can supply this little link for now:

http://www.opednews.com/rozelle_061404_American_ideals.htm

Asked, for instance, by Bob Woodward (as detailed in the book "Plan of Attack") how he approached the final decision to go to war, Bush replied, "I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will ... that I be as good a messenger of his will as possible."

Asked if he had conferred with his father, George H.W. Bush, the president responded, "There is a higher father that I appeal to."



Also - a Bush regime appointee...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/17/wboyk17.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/17/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=15391

Lt. General William Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of state of defence for intelligence:

Gen Boykin has repeatedly told Christian groups and prayer meetings that President George W Bush was chosen by God to lead the global fight against Satan.

He told one gathering: "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."

In January, he told Baptists in Florida about a victory over a Muslim warlord in Somalia, who had boasted that Allah would protect him from American capture. "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real god and his was an idol," Gen Boykin said.

He also emerged from the conflict with a photograph of the Somalian capital Mogadishu bearing a strange dark mark. He has said this showed "the principalities of darkness. . . a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy".

As far as I can see G&I, all you have proven is that there are Christians in the highest positions of American government who believe in their faith strongly. So what if Bush consulted God in regard to Iraq and other issues, I consult God regularly on a varity of issues. He wanted wisdom and stength of guidence. He wanted to know that what he was doing was the right thing to do by God. Whether or not it was is debateable but you cannot say that by consulting God about Iraq he is showing that Iraq was a religious war. That is like saying that when I consult God about University choices, I am entering a religious education.

As far as I can see G&I, all you have proven is that there are Christians in the highest positions of American government who believe in their faith strongly. So what if Bush consulted God in regard to Iraq and other issues, I consult God regularly on a varity of issues. He wanted wisdom and stength of guidence. He wanted to know that what he was doing was the right thing to do by God. Whether or not it was is debateable but you cannot say that by consulting God about Iraq he is showing that Iraq was a religious war. That is like saying that when I consult God about University choices, I am entering a religious education.
no its not the same, since bush declared this war, its his decision what type of war it is, you did not create the university, you do not decifde what type it is. i forget which logical fallacy that is, but its one of em

As far as I can see G&I, all you have proven is that there are Christians in the highest positions of American government who believe in their faith strongly. So what if Bush consulted God in regard to Iraq and other issues, I consult God regularly on a varity of issues. He wanted wisdom and stength of guidence. He wanted to know that what he was doing was the right thing to do by God. Whether or not it was is debateable but you cannot say that by consulting God about Iraq he is showing that Iraq was a religious war. That is like saying that when I consult God about University choices, I am entering a religious education.

When you do chose to go to University - will you claim that you are doing god's work? Will you claim that you're entering further education is part of god's inspired plan? Will you argue that god specifically put you in THAT place at THAT time for a reason?

I assume - being (or at least professing to be) a christian, that , yes - you will claim that you were serving god's will.

Bush claims that his War on Terror is inspired by god. The other post I posted shows some more of what he believes his god-given mission is.

So - Bush claims to believe, that he is the appointed emissary of god, in a war on the fundamentalists of Islam.

Perhaps you won't call your education (on academic principles, in an academic environment) an 'academic education'... and perhaps Bush wouldn't describe his war (on religious principle, against another religion) a religious war.

I wonder if there are any countries that have banned Islam ... have to look.

Well, can't find any that have banned Islam but there are a few non-Muslim majority countries that have restricted Islam (and often other religions):

Nepal: proselytising is prohibited. Non-Hindu religious groups occasionally complain of harrasment.
Liberia: religious freedom respected in practice but muslims have been targetted.
Ivory Coast: freedom of religion guaranteed but not respected in practice. Christianity openly favoured. Muslims have been targetted and face discrimination.
Burma: violence against muslims has not been restricted by government and muslims face restrictions on travel and relgious activity
India: violence against muslims and christians problematic under BJP. There is evidence that the government was complicit in violence against muslisms in Gujarat.
Greece: Orthodox Bishops decide whether other faiths can build places of worship. (I came across reports of muslims being discriminated against in employment on another site but could not substantiate it).
Russia: Non-Orthodox christians and other religious groups face difficulty in getting official registration, necessary for many religions activities. Mormons and Jehovas Wittnesses have been harassed by government officials, religious workers are often denied visas and Roman Catholics have been deported. (I also have unsubstantiated reports of employment discrimination against muslims).
Czech Republic: Only officially registered relgious groups (Roman Catholic and Protestant denominations) may own community property and receive state aid for clergy salaries, schools and church maintainence.
Phillipines: Moros, Muslims who live in Mindanao, say that they face economic and social discrimination by the country’s Roman Catholic majority.

All these from www.freedomhouse.org.

The convention on Human rights and the security concil are very diffrent things.

Very true. They are very different things indeed.

The UN Declaration (not Convention) on Human Rights:

"Although the Declaration, which comprises a broad range of rights, is not a legally binding document, it has inspired more than 60 human rights instruments which together constitute an international standard of human rights."
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/miscinfo/carta.htm

Security Council:

UN Charter, Article 25
"The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. "
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter5.htm


Very, very few members violate as many articles of it as Saudi Arabia.

One cannot violate something which is not legally binding.

I am still waiting, BTW, for an answer to a question I made near the beginning of this discussion: what practical measures do you believe christian-majority governments should take in reaction to the lack of freedom of religion (as you perceive it) in muslin-majority governments?

no its not the same, since bush declared this war, its his decision what type of war it is, you did not create the university, you do not decifde what type it is. i forget which logical fallacy that is, but its one of em

To go to war in Iraq or not. Exeter, UEA, Leeds, Birmingham, Southampton, Kent. Ok I have more choice than he does, but the does also have the choice about what kind of war to fight in the same way I have choice of courses.

I am still waiting, BTW, for an answer to a question I made near the beginning of this discussion: what practical measures do you believe christian-majority governments should take in reaction to the lack of freedom of religion (as you perceive it) in muslin-majority governments?

Boycott trade with them, legal sanctions, make the decolation of rights a legally binding document (complete with court to try it in) etc. Any kind of international threat/pressure short of war.

Boycott trade with them, legal sanctions, make the decolation of rights a legally binding document (complete with court to try it in) etc. Any kind of international threat/pressure short of war.

Not going to happen... sorry.

Just naive? Just overly hopeful?

You honestly believe that the 'christian' West is going to cut off trade-ties with the densest population of fossil fuel?

Not going to happen... sorry.

Just naive? Just overly hopeful?

You honestly believe that the 'christian' West is going to cut off trade-ties with the densest population of fossil fuel?

If they could be bothered to develop alternitve methods properly it would. Anyway I did not start this thread with it in mind to sugest what to do, I simpley wanted to dispell the myth that Islam is only intollerent in terms of its extremes and not its mainstreem. Saudia Arabia's constitution is the Qu'ran and because they can legally behead converts from Islam to other faiths, then that shows that somewhere the Qu'ran scantions the execution of converts from Islam to other faiths and that that part of it is still aplicable.

I like the way you say that the Saracens had 'occupied the land of the Europeans in Jerusalem'... neatly ignoring the fact that Europeans are not native to Jerusalem, and that the Saracen forces that Christians fought had a much more legitimate 'territorial' claim to the area.


You too neatly ignore that the Saracans were not native either. The Jews were native. They were the only ones with the legitmate claim. France is close to Cornwall, but that doesnt mean that France has anything like a legitamte claim to Cornish land. You cant claim legitmacy by proxy.

If they could be bothered to develop alternitve methods properly it would. Anyway I did not start this thread with it in mind to sugest what to do, I simpley wanted to dispell the myth that Islam is only intollerent in terms of its extremes and not its mainstreem. Saudia Arabia's constitution is the Qu'ran and because they can legally behead converts from Islam to other faiths, then that shows that somewhere the Qu'ran scantions the execution of converts from Islam to other faiths and that that part of it is still aplicable.

And the Bible ORDERS that you kill Witches... so, one assumes that you attach equal weight to the religious intolerance of Christianity?

Now, let's see how you respond to that, without mentioning the "Old Covenant" clause... for which, of course, you have no way of knowing whether or not there is a parallel in Qur'an scripture... since you haven't read it.

Of course, you haven't actually read the bible, either... have you?

You too neatly ignore that the Saracans were not native either. The Jews were native. They were the only ones with the legitmate claim. France is close to Cornwall, but that doesnt mean that France has anything like a legitamte claim to Cornish land. You cant claim legitmacy by proxy.

You too neatly ignore the fact that the Jews were not native, either.

It could be argued that the Jews have no more legitimate claim than the Saracens, since they waged a war of genocide on the people that were there when they got there.

At least the Saracens largely INCORPORATED their religious 'adversaries', rather than slaughtering every man, woman and child, as the Hebrews did.

I didn't claim Saracen legitimacy by proximity - more by nativity.

The people descended from the Meospotamian areas, and their nearest neighbours, are OF the people that originally peopled the area.

The largely Norse/Celtic populations of Western Europe had no legitimate claim on the territory, except their adopted religion. Which is also the adopted religious basis of the Saracens - since Islam is a 'progression' of christianity.

I'm gonna do to you what Bastard Sword did to me ...

You say it's in Qur'an, surah and ayyiah please. Show me where in Qur'an that it says to kill Muslims who convert away to something else. Show me where condemning Rushdie to death is sanctioned in Islam.

"slay [unbelievers] wherever you find them." (Sura 2:191; also Sura 4:89)

And the Bible ORDERS that you kill Witches... so, one assumes that you attach equal weight to the religious intolerance of Christianity?

Now, let's see how you respond to that, without mentioning the "Old Covenant" clause... for which, of course, you have no way of knowing whether or not there is a parallel in Qur'an scripture... since you haven't read it.

Of course, you haven't actually read the bible, either... have you?

1) There is no passage in the Bible which orders burning of witches, nor any other particalr group. There are instances of attacks and battles and (on occation) mass slaughters however there was no genral trend ordered. These were specific circumsatances not genral rules aplying to all circumstances.

2) If there was an old covenet "clause" (to use your turn of phrase) in the Qu'ran then logic dictates they wouldnt be doing what they are doing now if the order to kill all Muslims who convert to other faiths is in the old covenent of Islam. Since Saudi Arabia's constitution is the Qu'ran and they do kill all converts they can find, logic dictates that the order to kill all converts is located in a part of the Qu'ran which they believe is still active

no its not the same, since bush declared this war, its his decision what type of war it is, you did not create the university, you do not decifde what type it is. i forget which logical fallacy that is, but its one of em

No, Bush did not declare war. Only the Congress has the power to declare war. They did not do that in this case. They did however authorize the use of force. Thecnically, this is an undeclared war, just like all the wars the U.S. has fought since WW II.

If they could be bothered to develop alternitve methods properly it would. Anyway I did not start this thread with it in mind to sugest what to do, I simpley wanted to dispell the myth that Islam is only intollerent in terms of its extremes and not its mainstreem. Saudia Arabia's constitution is the Qu'ran and because they can legally behead converts from Islam to other faiths, then that shows that somewhere the Qu'ran scantions the execution of converts from Islam to other faiths and that that part of it is still aplicable.

So one muslim-majority state out of about 40 or so worldwide is the way you describe and somehow that means that Islam is intolerant in the mainstream?

"slay [unbelievers] wherever you find them." (Sura 2:191; also Sura 4:89)

Partial quotes don't count. What if the first words of the Surah you've quoted say "Do not"?

You've mentioned both Surah's .... 2:191 and 4:89 ... and only given a tiny fraction of 2:191 ... quote the whole thing and give context, ie. try quoting 2:189 - 192.

In 2:189-192, you're missing the whole bit about turning them out as they have turned you out. You've missed everything about how it is a retaliation, not an aggression. It is self defense.

4:89 is mentioning actions taken against those, specifically, who demand you renounce Islam.

Try again, though.

So one muslim-majority state out of about 40 or so worldwide is the way you describe and somehow that means that Islam is intolerant in the mainstream?

A muslim state that is strict to its holy book and uses it as its constitution seems to me to be Islam at its mainstreem. If you ran a state on the Bible it would be interesting to see what would come out. (And dont come out with Old Testement quotes, the New tesement shows the Old in the correct light, which parts are still active and not)

"slay [unbelievers] wherever you find them." (Sura 2:191; also Sura 4:89)

Sura 2:192


190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


Quote the context.

Slay AGGRESORS wherever ye may find them - and if they stop, leave them alone.

Don't edit their scripture to support your prejudice.

Sura 4:89

89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

90 Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them.



So, if someone turns to 'emnity', you should destroy them - UNLESS they 'wage not war', 'offer peace', or 'seek refuge'.

I only wish christianity gave the same protections to non-believers.

A muslim state that is strict to its holy book and uses it as its constitution seems to me to be Islam at its mainstreem. If you ran a state on the Bible it would be interesting to see what would come out. (And dont come out with Old Testement quotes, the New tesement shows the Old in the correct light, which parts are still active and not)

Correction:

"A Muslim-majority state that is strict to its favoured interpretations of their holy book..."

1) There is no passage in the Bible which orders burning of witches, nor any other particalr group. There are instances of attacks and battles and (on occation) mass slaughters however there was no genral trend ordered. These were specific circumsatances not genral rules aplying to all circumstances.

2) If there was an old covenet "clause" (to use your turn of phrase) in the Qu'ran then logic dictates they wouldnt be doing what they are doing now if the order to kill all Muslims who convert to other faiths is in the old covenent of Islam. Since Saudi Arabia's constitution is the Qu'ran and they do kill all converts they can find, logic dictates that the order to kill all converts is located in a part of the Qu'ran which they believe is still active

1) I didn't say "burn" witches. Guilty conscience for your compatriots, there?

If you can't think of a verse that expressly states that you should kill witches, there is no excuse for your ignorance - especially in a 'religion' debate.

Know your OWN scripture before you attack someone else's, hypocrite.

Ezekiel 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."


2) You have yet to prove that Saudi Arabia does "kill all converts they can find". There is a big difference between confiscating someone's book, and killing them.

Partial quotes don't count. What if the first words of the Surah you've quoted say "Do not"?

You've mentioned both Surah's .... 2:191 and 4:89 ... and only given a tiny fraction of 2:191 ... quote the whole thing and give context, ie. try quoting 2:189 - 192.

In 2:189-192, you're missing the whole bit about turning them out as they have turned you out. You've missed everything about how it is a retaliation, not an aggression. It is self defense.

4:89 is mentioning actions taken against those, specifically, who demand you renounce Islam.

Try again, though.

Rats, beat me to it...

:)

Rats, beat me to it...

:)

I seem to recall this same point being argued much further back in the thread as well.

I seem to recall this same point being argued much further back in the thread as well.

Yes, well, these things do tend to be cyclical. I'm willing to bet that at least 800 of my 2500+ posts are me just having to repeat myself.

I seem to recall this same point being argued much further back in the thread as well.
Unfortunately, there are some (such as our honourable compatriot, Neo), who do not see mere DISPROOF as a good enough reason not to resurrect an expired argument...

Yes, well, these things do tend to be cyclical. I'm willing to bet that at least 800 of my 2500+ posts are me just having to repeat myself.

Sorry, what did you say? :D

Yes, well, these things do tend to be cyclical. I'm willing to bet that at least 800 of my 2500+ posts are me just having to repeat myself.

Funny, I'm willing to bet that at least 800 of your 2500+ posts are you just having to repeat yourself.

Partial quotes don't count. What if the first words of the Surah you've quoted say "Do not"?

You've mentioned both Surah's .... 2:191 and 4:89 ... and only given a tiny fraction of 2:191 ... quote the whole thing and give context, ie. try quoting 2:189 - 192.

4:89 is mentioning actions taken against those, specifically, who demand you renounce Islam.

Try again, though.

2.191: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers

4.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper

4.89 says nothing about those that demand you rinounce Islam. It is talking about blasphemers, unbelievers (Christians and Jews) and pagans.

Sorry, what did you say? :D


I said .... +1 :D

2.191: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers

4.89: They that desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper

4.89 says nothing about those that demand you rinounce Islam. It is talking about blasphemers, unbelievers (Christians and Jews) and pagans.

2:191 is still out of context without 2:190 and 2:192. But, as you can see just on its own, that 2:191 is talking about a retaliation. It's saying, quite plainly, that "People X drove you out, now it's your turn to go drive them out."

Not an act of aggression, not a pre-emptive strike, but a retaliation for something already done against you. It's not a foreign or alien concept. If someone hits you, smack them back. If they apologize, then stop.

Why is that a bad thing?

I put in bold what 4:89 is talking about. Read it with your own eyes. I also included in bold red the word that you - either conveniently or accidentally - left out.


"Unbelievers" doesn't not mean Christians or Jews. Christians and Jews believe in God, just not in the same way, and this is a perfectly acceptable thing in Islam. "Unbelievers" refers to Muslims who become Pagan and, more specifically, of the Babylonian Pagan variety that made human sacrifices and sought genocide against the early Muslim people. I seriously doubt any of that particular variety of Pagan is around anymore.

G&I had a great description of it. I suggest reading his post as well.

I fiind that Christianity and Islam are imperialistic philosophies and totalitarian in nature.

If you can't see it, perhaps you're blind.

2.191: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers

4.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper

4.89 says nothing about those that demand you rinounce Islam. It is talking about blasphemers, unbelievers (Christians and Jews) and pagans.

I suggest you read back a page, to my posts on this matter... your 'arguments' have already been debunked, in the light of ACTUAL scripture IN CONTEXT.

Thanks for playing, though.

2) You have yet to prove that Saudi Arabia does "kill all converts they can find". There is a big difference between confiscating someone's book, and killing them.

If you won't beleive the word of people who have been there, try reading "Islam Unveiled" by Robert Spencer.

2:191 is still out of context without 2:190 and 2:192. But, as you can see just on its own, that 2:191 is talking about a retaliation. It's saying, quite plainly, that "People X drove you out, now it's your turn to go drive them out."

Not an act of aggression, not a pre-emptive strike, but a retaliation for something already done against you. It's not a foreign or alien concept. If someone hits you, smack them back. If they apologize, then stop.

Why is that a bad thing?

I put in bold what 4:89 is talking about. Read it with your own eyes. I also included in bold red the word that you - either conveniently or accidentally - left out.


"Unbelievers" doesn't not mean Christians or Jews. Christians and Jews believe in God, just not in the same way, and this is a perfectly acceptable thing in Islam. "Unbelievers" refers to Muslims who become Pagan and, more specifically, of the Babylonian Pagan variety that made human sacrifices and sought genocide against the early Muslim people. I seriously doubt any of that particular variety of Pagan is around anymore.

G&I had a great description of it. I suggest reading his post as well.

Ah man, Beat me to it AGAIN!

:)

If you won't beleive the word of people who have been there, try reading "Islam Unveiled" by Robert Spencer.

I stand corrected... you would be one of these 'people' that have been to Saudi Arabia and been executed for being a christian, then?

I stand corrected... you would be one of these 'people' that have been to Saudi Arabia and been executed for being a christian, then?

Of course, how else would they be able to come back and write the book? ;)

Of course, how else would they be able to come back and write the book? ;)

I know... silly me... I guess sometimes I just don't pay attention.

If you won't beleive the word of people who have been there, try reading "Islam Unveiled" by Robert Spencer.

I've been to Saudi Arabia ... long before I became Muslim ... I was a Jew ... and was welcomed openly. Robert Spencer is a bad source, and I've already discussed - in this very thread - the book "Islam Unveiled" as being blatantly biased and hateful.

Unfortunately, were I to discuss it all again, I'd have to add yet another +1 to my having to repeat myself. Funny thing about that: my biggest pet peeve in the whole world is having to repeat myself.

I fiind that Christianity and Islam are imperialistic philosophies and totalitarian in nature.

If you can't see it, perhaps you're blind.

Christianity is not imperialist or totalitarian. I am unfamiliar with the Islamic beliefs.

First, Christians seek no empire on earth. Second, you and all people are invited to become Christian. No human delivers punishment for not accepting Jesus as your Savior. That is something God can do, if this is His will.

Beyond that, I am not blind, although I do use bifocals. Interestingly, my driver's license does not note this is required for me to drive. I thank God for this and all of the blessings bestowed upon me.

I'd also like very much for everyone to read this:

http://www.divineislam.co.uk/DivineIslam/Articles/Terrorism/terrorism1.shtml

A muslim state that is strict to its holy book and uses it as its constitution seems to me to be Islam at its mainstreem.

Thank you. After 650 odd posts you finally agree that it is theocracy that is the problem, not Islam.


If you ran a state on the Bible it would be interesting to see what would come out. (And dont come out with Old Testement quotes, the New tesement shows the Old in the correct light, which parts are still active and not)

It would indeed be interesting, you may well be surprised. Historical evidence tends to suggest that the more theocratic a Christian-majority state is the more intolerant it is.

But that's irrelevant, what's important is this: you started by saying that the problem lies with Islam. You have now stated that you are only considering those states that use their Holy Book as the constitution. Until you can cite a concrete example of a state that uses the Bible as its constitution that does not behave in the way Saudi Arabia does then you cannot go any further than saying that the problem is states that use their Holy Book as their constitution. Anything else is mere speculation.

Thank you. After 650 odd posts you finally agree that it is theocracy that is the problem, not Islam.



It would indeed be interesting, you may well be surprised. Historical evidence tends to suggest that the more theocratic a Christian-majority state is the more intolerant it is.

But that's irrelevant, what's important is this: you started by saying that the problem lies with Islam. You have now stated that you are only considering those states that use their Holy Book as the constitution. Until you can cite a concrete example of a state that uses the Bible as its constitution that does not behave in the way Saudi Arabia does then you cannot go any further than saying that the problem is states that use their Holy Book as their constitution. Anything else is mere speculation.

In other words, Neo is arguing that running a state based on a Holy Book is a bad thing...

Oh, how is he going to defend his little anti-gay-marriage platform, without backing it with a belief that law should be biblical?

well i say just do away with religion on a whole
i mean all it does is create BIG problems for the world
nealry all wars have been in the name of the ''true god'' whoever the hell that might be.
and i know the arguement that we have to have something to believe but its a loada bull.

religion is bad for the world, it restricts our views,it blinds us to what exactly is happening.

i mean all religions think they are ''right'' but in fact how do they know what is right or what suits the world best?
how many religions are there in the world?? there beliefs often contradict eachother.

its so gay!
i dont care if its islam,christianity or judaism most or even all religions are plagued by war and single minded selfishness.

shoot religion dead not the people :sniper:

I stand corrected... you would be one of these 'people' that have been to Saudi Arabia and been executed for being a christian, then?

Yes I have been to Saudi Arabia. Obviously, I obeyed their laws while I was a guest in their country.

A muslim state that is strict to its holy book and uses it as its constitution seems to me to be Islam at its mainstreem. If you ran a state on the Bible it would be interesting to see what would come out. (And dont come out with Old Testement quotes, the New tesement shows the Old in the correct light, which parts are still active and not)

Technically, strictly adhering to a holy book is not "mainstream," it is fundamentalism. The holy book is not the be all and end all of any religion, the rituals, traditions, artworks, (in other words culture) is.

If you don't believe me go up to the bishop of Rome and ask him whether it is a good idea to strictly interpret the Bible. Either that or read Vatican II.

First, Christians seek no empire on earth.
Ha, Christians no longer seek empire, but that's because the Vatican, major source of christianity's power, has had the shit kicked out of it's military ambitions often enough that they've STOPPED. Christianity was almost if not just as oppressive as Islam currently is. It has been a tortuous journey to where christianity is today, with plenty of blood shed. Islams still somewhere before the 95 theses and there's a Looooooooooooooooooooooooong way to go.

Ha, Christians no longer seek empire, but that's because the Vatican, major source of christianity's power, has had the shit kicked out of it's military ambitions often enough that they've STOPPED. Christianity was almost if not just as oppressive as Islam currently is. It has been a tortuous journey to where christianity is today, with plenty of blood shed. Islams still somewhere before the 95 theses and there's a Looooooooooooooooooooooooong way to go.

So, you agree that Islam is a bloodthirsty religion out to conquer the world? Or is that just the “fundamentalists?”

So, you agree that Islam is a bloodthirsty religion out to conquer the world? Or is that just the “fundamentalists?”
That it needs to have the shit kicked out of it a few times before it'll settle down.

So ... after 680 posts in this thread, absolutely no headway has been made at all. The people who believe Islam to be a religion that preaches hatred and suicide bombings on children still believe that way even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

There are people in this thread who would actually believe that I am teaching my son that the most lofty purpose he could have in life is to strap on a bomb and scream "Allah Akbar!" as he decimates 20 or 30 "infidel" children and, frankly, I no longer see any reason to continue trying to convince them otherwise. After all ... I am an average Muslim and these people believe that such an attitude is "mainstream" or "average" among Muslims.

I'm sure that's what "Scooby Snacks" really were as Casey Kasem (Muslim) spoke of them as Shaggy (such a terrorist there). Perhaps when Everlast (Muslim) was writing the song "What It's Like", he was contemplating blowing up a playground. Perhaps Selma Hayek (Muslim) or Gerard Depardieu (Muslim) put out hidden jihad messages in their facial expressions as they act out parts in film. Do you suppose Doug Flutie (Muslim) was imagining throwing explosives as he was throwing the "miracle touchdown" pass for Boston College? Oh ... I know ... John Coltrane's (Muslim) lyrical jazz was actually disguised anti-American fatwah!

So ... anyway ... I'm out of this thread. It's nothing but a headache. Makes me yearn for the month of October when all anyone would talk about was Bush vs. Kerry and Swift Boat Vet conspiracies.

Yes I have been to Saudi Arabia. Obviously, I obeyed their laws while I was a guest in their country.

Then I fail to see why you responded in the first place - since, MY response was to Neo_Cannen (I believe), who still espouses that Saudi Arabia is tracking down and 'executing' all the christians they can find.

Your input, about people who have been there, to support his 'claim' - obviously implies that you are one of those people tracked down and 'executed'. Although your uncanny ability to continue responding, post-execution, is making me worry about the veracity of any evidence you claim on this subject.

Keruvalia, I admire your post on this thread. I am not a Muslim but I understand the teachings of Islam. I too am tired of people stereotyping an entire religion based on Fundamental Extremists. If all Budhists were judged by the actions of extremist monks then one might expect every Budhist to die by the age of 30 due to setting himself on fire to protest credit cardsor some other worthless fight. There is nothing violent or hostile about Islam. Like most other major religions, it is cethnocentric. Those that follow the teachings believe they are right. I am a Christian and I believe that I am right but that doesn't make me a bloodthirsty barbarian, which is what Muslims have been made out to be.

So ... anyway ... I'm out of this thread. It's nothing but a headache. Makes me yearn for the month of October when all anyone would talk about was Bush vs. Kerry and Swift Boat Vet conspiracies.

I think your presence on this thread as long as this testifies to the fact that muslims can be tolerant. Of having to repeat themselves endlessly to people who steadfastly refuse to be shown to be incorrect in any way whatsoever.

Assalam-o-Alaikum

I think your presence on this thread as long as this testifies to the fact that muslims can be tolerant. Of having to repeat themselves endlessly to people who steadfastly refuse to be shown to be incorrect in any way whatsoever.

Assalam-o-Alaikum

Ditto.

...- obviously implies that you are one of those people tracked down and 'executed'. Although your uncanny ability to continue responding, post-execution, is making me worry about the veracity of any evidence you claim on this subject.

I was a Buddhist that has been reincarnated as a Jew. :p: :p: :headbang:

Keruvalia, I understand what you were trying to do and I applaud you for that. I think the frustration of the West is the fact that not many Moslems speak out against what the Islamic terrorists are doing. Because they are not speaking out very loudly, it reinforces the stereotype in the mind of people. I do know a few have spoken out but not enough and not loud enough.

P.S. I have learned a lot on this thread.

I think your presence on this thread as long as this testifies to the fact that muslims can be tolerant. Of having to repeat themselves endlessly to people who steadfastly refuse to be shown to be incorrect in any way whatsoever.

Assalam-o-Alaikum

Oh, Muslims sure can be tolerant, like anyone else. Actually , the most tolerant person I know is a Muslim (well - an ex-muslim, in fact, a baaad apostate, but brought up and moulded in Muslim culture). Muslims are tolerant in the exact measure they're not good Muslims. Islam is intolerant in nature, you can see that very clearly reading the Quran, the hadiths, the comments by muslim theologians. But fortunately, no Muslim applies it 100 percent. Hey - no one can be inhuman all the time.

What I mean is - "hate the sin, not the sinner". I hate Islam, I don't hate Muslims.

Oh, Muslims sure can be tolerant, like anyone else. Actually , the most tolerant person I know is a Muslim (well - an ex-muslim, in fact, a baaad apostate, but brought up and moulded in Muslim culture). Muslims are tolerant in the exact measure they're not good Muslims. Islam is intolerant in nature, you can see that very clearly reading the Quran, the hadiths, the comments by muslim theologians. But fortunately, no Muslim applies it 100 percent. Hey - no one can be inhuman all the time.

What I mean is - "hate the sin, not the sinner". I hate Islam, I don't hate Muslims.

( wOOt )

Saudia Arabia's constitution is the Qu'ran and because they can legally behead converts from Islam to other faiths, then that shows that somewhere the Qu'ran scantions the execution of converts from Islam to other faiths and that that part of it is still aplicable.

Yes, and the Vatican is run by the Bible. So I guess everything they have ever done must be sanctioned by the Bible.

Or maybe you are just demonstrating a lack of logic and an extreme amount of hypocrisy.

Yes, and the Vatican is run by the Bible. So I guess everything they have ever done must be sanctioned by the Bible.

Or maybe you are just demonstrating a lack of logic and an extreme amount of hypocrisy.
A Christian … hypocrisy

NEVER!

A Christian … hypocrisy

NEVER!

*Some* of us do try to avoid it, I swear!

*Some* of us do try to avoid it, I swear!
Oh I know … it seems to be a flaw in humanity in general

And I know I am over generalizing but religious text in general give a lot of leeway … in fact it is hard to “believe” in any of the major religion and not be hypocritical in some form (there are so many contradictory small laws and such)

Just angry those who follow blindly

Sorry dident mean to stereotype I just wanted to point out the apparent problems with it in a large scale

And I incorrectly narrowed the field down to Christians alone

Anyways … just saying humans in general got amazing talent for hypocrisy … religion just seems to provide more material

Yes, and the Vatican is run by the Bible. So I guess everything they have ever done must be sanctioned by the Bible.
It would be closer to say that the Vatican is run solely off of the OT. I beleive the hadiths would be an extremely rough analogue to the NT, although the context of the two really doesn't line up fully.

Saudi culture is the culture of Islam. Both Mecca and Medina are located there. Islam was founded there. The ancient Arabic culture was replaced by the Moslem movement.


Saudi Arabia is home to the most conservative sect of Islam - Wahabi. Just like in Christianity there are different sects, Islam has several sects as well. Besides being divided into Shiite and Sunni, the divisions continue down, and Wahabi is just one form of Islam. MOST Middle Eastern countries are not Wahabi, which is why in Iraq and Palestine and Jordan and Egypt women drive cars and in fact, participate in government. The Wahabi have immense power -- picture, if you will, extremist Christian or Judaic sects powered by the wealth of Saudi Arabia's ruling family.

The core of traditional Islam and its Sufi (mystical) sects is deeply rooted and established within peace, tolerance and conciliation. Traditional Islam honors and respects "The People of the Book," that is, people of other religions, especially other monotheists, Christian and Judean. The Bible is part of their tradition as well as the Koran.

It is not in any way true that Saudi Arabia is representative of Islamic culture. In fact, this is very far from the truth. Saudi Arabia, however, has oodles of cash and influence, especially with American government and media, and therefore has influence on what we understand about Islam. It benefits their cause of destroying all traditional Islam if we deem the entire religion as evil.

Even if all of the above about Wahabi Saudi Arabia does not convince you that Saudi Arabia DOES NOT respresent all Islamic culture, think on this: less than 1/3 of Muslims live in the Middle East.