I can see why a website owner would feel the prerogative to not host explicit arguments to remove the rights of entire groups of people most of whom have committed no crime. Perhaps you can talk about your criticisms of Islam and its followers without saying they shouldn't have rights?
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2025 3:27 pm
I can see why a website owner would feel the prerogative to not host explicit arguments to remove the rights of entire groups of people most of whom have committed no crime. Perhaps you can talk about your criticisms of Islam and its followers without saying they shouldn't have rights?
Thanks FJ, you put it better and more succinctly than I could.
attofishpi, if you do choose to post here, you follow our rules.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2025 3:27 pm
I can see why a website owner would feel the prerogative to not host explicit arguments to remove the rights of entire groups of people most of whom have committed no crime. Perhaps you can talk about your criticisms of Islam and its followers without saying they shouldn't have rights?
I think removing the rights of groups of people ought to be discussed in a philosophy forum.
It's something that has happened many times in the past. It has happened in democracies and non-democracies. It looks like it might happen in the near future in the US.
The Trump administration is probably going to try to deport people who are in the US legally.
Where is it going to be discussed and when, if not here and now?
ISLAM requires its followers to incorporate their Quranic scripture to also be implemented within the LAW of the land..in other words, Muslims do not believe in any secular societal structure as in accordance with their Quran.
If I read this right: Islam requires sharia be the law, that sharia should supersede, for example, the American Constitution. Is this true?
ISLAM requires its followers to incorporate their Quranic scripture to also be implemented within the LAW of the land..in other words, Muslims do not believe in any secular societal structure as in accordance with their Quran.
If I read this right: Islam requires sharia be the law, that sharia should supersede, for example, the American Constitution. Is this true?
Like all religions, there are many interpretations
ISLAM requires its followers to incorporate their Quranic scripture to also be implemented within the LAW of the land..in other words, Muslims do not believe in any secular societal structure as in accordance with their Quran.
If I read this right: Islam requires sharia be the law, that sharia should supersede, for example, the American Constitution. Is this true?
Like all religions, there are many interpretations
Yes, I understand that. Among those interpretations are those of the sunni and shiite, both which do work to see sharia as the law of the land.
Are these the muslims atto (in the forum penalty box again) is worried about?
I suppose I'll have to wait till he returns to get an answer.
ISLAM requires its followers to incorporate their Quranic scripture to also be implemented within the LAW of the land..in other words, Muslims do not believe in any secular societal structure as in accordance with their Quran.
If I read this right: Islam requires sharia be the law, that sharia should supersede, for example, the American Constitution. Is this true?
If I read the Ten Commandments from a Christian Bible I believe the first one says no God but me, whereas the first amendment in the US constitution guarantees religious freedom. Are we therefore to entertain removing the right to vote from Christians?
What version of an inalienable right permits alienation for one specific religion?
A country that is 97 percent muslim bans the hijab and other religious islamic attire. So when moronic wokies defend what they call 'muslim culture' they are actually defending destroyers of culture.
Tajikistan, where 97% of the population is Muslim, has banned the Islamic hijab throughout the country.
The government of Tajikistan stated:
‘Hijabs are an alien culture and a cultural invasion. Women in this country have freedom and do not cover their hair!’
This decision followed the law passed on June 19, by the Majlissi milli, the upper house of the Tajik parliament, regarding the "regulation of traditions and rites." The measure bans wearing "clothing foreign to Tajik culture," a term widely used by the authorities to describe Islamic dress, which they consider an outward sign of religious extremism.
Prohibited everywhere in the public space, the hijab is particularly targeted by this law, signed the day after it was passed by President Emomali Rahmon, who has been in power since 1992. The decree is the latest in a long series of reforms introduced by the government, aiming to "protect national cultural values, and prevent superstition and extremism."
right: Islam requires sharia be the law, that sharia should supersede, for example, the American Constitution. Is this true?right: Islam requires sharia be the law, that sharia should supersede, for example, the American Constitution. Is this true?
