Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Belinda
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Belinda »

Crux, your experience with the culturally mixed school has been a good one. However we do need statistics and research about the proportion of non-English speakers to English speakers that is critical for viable integration. I am sorry that I cannot now direct anyone to relevant educational research regarding non-English speakers and regarding possible difficulties of teaching critical thinking in faith schools.

The local mosque mounted a display about Islam and Muhammad and invited local people to the mosque to view it. We wore headscarfs and covered our arms, and removed our shoes in the vestibule. There was a nice young Muslim man who wore a white shalwar kameez and who answered questions as courteously and informatively as anyone could wish, and who showed us the premises including the prayer room. I felt welcome.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by ForCruxSake »

Belinda wrote:ForCruxSake, I refer to your latest post addressed to me. Regarding idolatry,this has little to do with statuettes or other images. It has to do with making a human and their ideas into a figure of perfection. Only God is perfect. Muhammad is not Allah, yet Muslims regard Muhammad as perfect.
Actually in Islam it is a lot about images and representations of those things to be idolised. It's why there are so few paintings of the prophet. The ones that do exist usually show him with a veil on his face. In a weird kind of way it's doing the same thing, setting him apart as something that is above description.

In orthodoxy, no human figure should be represented in any form of art. It's why fleur-de-lys and geometric designs were so popular in Islamic art. They were not to create anything that could be idolised.
Belinda wrote:True, Muhammad was a great innovator. politician, and reformer the spirit of whose ethics is relevant today. Muhammad however is not an aspect of God as is Jesus Christ, but is God's messenger. As messenger Muhammad should not be regarded as perfect.

I didn't say Muhammad was an aspect of God. He's revered by his followers. Jesus, too, should be respected by Muslims as a prophet, mentioned in the Qu'ran, but after a couple of centuries of the Crusades it's easy to understand why Jesus doesn't come up in too much in Islamic preaching. Perfect or not, the prophet Muhammad is the role model for how a Muslim should behave. Let them have that instead of trying to tell them what and how they should be.
Belinda wrote:Jesus of history was not an ordinary criminal as you said but was possibly an insurgent against a cruel and stupid Roman regime of occupation in Palestine. It was more likely that J was a wandering holy man with a charismatic way of preaching Judaism.
Not according to some of the History Channel stuff I've watched. He was not the only potential for Messiah either, all of whom were politically rallying at a time of Roman occupation.

What do we know about the Messiah from prophecies written by the Jews ('cause let's face it the Christians couldn't have prophecised the Messiah now, could they?)? No time to précis it but here's a comprehensive link, that says why Jesus COULDN'T have been the Messiah, by citing Jewish scripture.

http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/real_messiah.html

One of criteria for Messiah is that he would lead people to war against the enemies of the Jews. He was meant to be a warrior, not a man of peace. The war he would initiate and win, was the thing that was meant to bring peace. Not contemplative preaching,

I was educated at CofE schools, at both primary and secondary school levels. Jesus as a warrior came up for discussion back then too, but this is more History Channel stuff. But what do they know, right?
Last edited by ForCruxSake on Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by ForCruxSake »

Greatest I am wrote:
ForCruxSake wrote:[ They may not be the best Muslims in the world, they're just very 'average'.

Does this accurately represent the average Muslim?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9bEkGd1AVo

Before you answer, look at the stats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... SPvnFDDQHk

Regards
DL
It's time to purvey your hate elsewhere. No one's buying here.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 3116
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Greatest I am »

My hate is well directed and I will allow it full reign until it is assuaged.

I am far from alone as many people care about the situations of others and do not tread evil as an intellectual exercise.

Regards
DL
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by ForCruxSake »

Greatest I am wrote:My hate is well directed and I will allow it full reign until it is assuaged.

I am far from alone as many people care about the situations of others and do not tread evil as an intellectual exercise.

Regards
DL
:roll:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27624
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Anyone watching the situation in Canada?

Apparently they just passed a policy or law that "Islamophobia" is illegal. See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 47851.html

Mind you, they actually turned down doing anything about antiSemitism, hating Christians, speaking ill of Hindus, or even, for that matter, guaranteeing a voice for Atheists.

It looks like it's legal protection and privilege for only one religion or ideology.

Nasty.
Belinda
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel, my Canadian friend since childhood would not agree with you about Canadian values. Neither do I. Canadians like other civilised nationalities want to keep their country peaceful and Islamophobia tends to spawn rowdy agitators.
Last edited by Belinda on Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8360
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Immanuel Can wrote:Anyone watching the situation in Canada?

Apparently they just passed a policy or law that "Islamophobia" is illegal. See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 47851.html

Mind you, they actually turned down doing anything about antiSemitism, hating Christians, speaking ill of Hindus, or even, for that matter, guaranteeing a voice for Atheists.

It looks like it's legal protection and privilege for only one religion or ideology.

Nasty.
I think not.
It's to stop morons taking "revenge" on people who have nothing to do with terrorism. It's a sort of racism that some people think is justified. The other things you mention are not really issues.
When they are, then I'm sure the Canadians will do something about it.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5725
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Greatest I am wrote:Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee,
because they're crazy! ;-)
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 3116
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Greatest I am »

Immanuel Can wrote:Anyone watching the situation in Canada?

Apparently they just passed a policy or law that "Islamophobia" is illegal. See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 47851.html

Mind you, they actually turned down doing anything about antiSemitism, hating Christians, speaking ill of Hindus, or even, for that matter, guaranteeing a voice for Atheists.

It looks like it's legal protection and privilege for only one religion or ideology.

Nasty.
Your evaluation is correct but that bill has a long way to go and will likely die on the order paper.

I think and hope it is just a Liberal ploy to gain minority votes.

If it is not, then it is an anti-democracy and freedom of speech law and hopefully, our politicians will protect our rights and vote that bill down.

Islamophobia refers to the "fear", hatred or dislike directed against Islam, or towards Islamic politics or culture.[

I am likely classed under that word as I hate the Islamic/Sharia ideology as it is a slave holding ideology.
If that law passes, I will have to turn myself in as I am guilty of hating those who live by the immoral rules and laws that are Islam and Sharia.

I would like to see what kind of verdict a judge would give to those who hate the slavery, those who promote the killing of gays and apostates and also hate those who deny women equality under the law.

All justifiable hates in my eyes.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27624
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote:Islamophobia
Do you think Islamists love secularists? Those they call "infidels." Before they kill the Christians (and usually just after they kill the Jews) those are the people they most love to kill. Because, you see, you're not "People of the Book," as they say.

Me, I get the privilege of being a "dhimmi". That means they can tax me to death, steal my possessions, beat me at will, and steal my daughters to be forcibly "married" and raped by Islamic men. But I may get to live, if I don't proselytize. If I do, I'm dead too.

You, on the other hand, are first under the scimitar.

Read the Koran.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 3116
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Greatest I am »

Belinda wrote:Immanuel, my Canadian friend since childhood would not agree with you about Canadian values. Neither do I. Canadians like other civilised nationalities want to keep their country peaceful and Islamophobia tends to spawn rowdy agitators.
True.
It does, but it also informs the Canadian public about how vile and immoral Islam and Sharia is.

The more Canadians know of Islam, the less they will tolerate those who do not tolerate us.

Look at the religion of peace for the first time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9bEkGd1AVo

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 3116
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Greatest I am »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee,
because they're crazy! ;-)
I use the word immoral as it shows that they do not believe in the golden rule or reciprocity.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8360
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Belinda wrote:Islamophobia
Do you think Islamists love secularists? Those they call "infidels." Before they kill the Christians (and usually just after they kill the Jews) those are the people they most love to kill. Because, you see, you're not "People of the Book," as they say.

Me, I get the privilege of being a "dhimmi". That means they can tax me to death, steal my possessions, beat me at will, and steal my daughters to be forcibly "married" and raped by Islamic men. But I may get to live, if I don't proselytize. If I do, I'm dead too.

You, on the other hand, are first under the scimitar.

Read the Koran.
Christians kill way more Muslims than Muslims kill Christians.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27624
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Greatest I am wrote:I am likely classed under that word as I hate the Islamic/Sharia ideology as it is a slave holding ideology.
If that law passes, I will have to turn myself in as I am guilty of hating those who live by the immoral rules and laws that are Islam and Sharia.
Right.

I have a "non-Islamophobic" solution, though. Guarantee everyone the right to follow conscience, but ban Sharia.

Don't hate the Sunnis, the Shia, the Sufis, the Bahai, or any other sect. Let any of them have their faith, and guarantee their right to do so. But ban any non-elective practice of Islamic Law. Ban Sharia once and for all. Constitutionally eliminate it from being incorporated into any governmental policy or law, and on the private front, make it illegal for a man (or woman) to force his family to practice it (unless they agree they wish to do so, which would not be force). In which case, live and let live.

Don't fight Muslims: fight Sharia.
Post Reply