'No compulsion in religiion' is not true in islam

[sedonaman]

I think she was speaking of Western interventionism.

I considered that. But she should ask which came first, the chicken or the egg.

 

[neploho]

I considered that. But she should ask which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Do you have a point?

 

[neploho]

To the mind indoctrinated into this cult called Islam, as long as “allah” has commanded it, no matter how reprehensible, no matter how that individual feels about it himself, then it is okay.

Catholicism is different?

I have seen muslims deny that in Islam it is authorised to marry and sexually stimulate yourself with infants, even suckling babies. When presented with the evidence, you can hear the horror in their voices even at the same time they are saying, if allah allowed it then it is okay.

One I heard was saying this, with the qualifier - “but I wouldn’t”. We can only hope and pray as they see the truth about their cult, they will leave.

What is a cult? How do you define it?

 

[chrisse]

Yes, like consider how long the line is to get into the U.S. legally and how short the lines are to get into places run by Islam. Do Muslims come here to be stoned, maimed, or oppressed? I don’t think so.

I met an American last week who worked in Saudi Arabia for four years. He told me you had to get the Saudi government’s permission to leave the country. I think the short line to get in and permission to leave say it all.

And then there is the infamous chop-chop square :

Saudi Justice System

One of the more gruesome parts of living in Saudi was “chop-chop square”. This was an open courtyard area just off the gold souks where each Friday punishment was meted out to the criminals convicted of serious crimes as robbery, drug dealing or murder. Islamic law requires a thief to have his right hand cut off; this punishment can be administered after one offense but is usually not delivered until after multiple offenses.

Persons convicted of drug-related offenses, rape and murder all are beheaded. This is done today just as it was a thousand years ago; with a large curved sword. A modern twist is often used in that the person is usually drugged and often has some of their blood removed just before execution so the scene is not so messy.

If a Westerner is near chop-chop square and an execution is about to commence, they are often shoved to the front of the crowd for a close up view of Saudi (or Islamic) justice. I never witnessed these events, but I knew some who did, and it wasn’t very pleasant. Regardless of your opinion of this form of “justice”, they do not have a very high crime rate in Saudi Arabia!

The article is about a Westerner living in Saudi Arabia. The author’s last statement is a lame attempt to put a good result from this barbarity. Of course, they also do not keep statistics on crime in Saudi Arabia as we have in Western countries. They also have a different definition of what constitutes a crime.

 

[Agabriel]

I can have my opinions here now that secularism has usurped the primacy of religion. St. Aquinas and, I beleive< Church cannon law both said it was quite proper for heretics to be executed by the state. This is what I find annoying. Taking hard won freedoms that did not exist when the Church was the main power, and then using this freedom to goat over Muslim coutries. When Christendom existed it had its own draconian punishments for adultry.

I do not defend such actions. I simply find it hypocritical for Christians to think themselves superior to the “barbaric muhammadans” when these Muslim countries are commiting actions accecpted by your God in the Old Testament. In fact Chrust never forbade slavery, nor did St. Paul. Slavery existed in Christendom for quite some time.

They don’t apply in “our lands” because those lands are secular republics which have ushed religion into a more benign sphere of personal beleif without any real bearing on the ordering of larger society.

I find it hypocritical for secularists to think they are so superior too. Communism has killed more people in the 20th Century than any other ‘ism’. The Nazis didn’t even kill as many as Stalin alone, or Mao alone. But, the Muslims have been right there trying their mightiest to get their ‘licks’ in. And all these ‘isms’ are human rights disasters.

Maybe go recheck our documents of the Founding Fathers, you will see mentioned God in there a few times so they were aware of some principles that the ‘isms’ forget.

And yes, I do think Christianity, and also Judaism, is superior to islam. We have changed and evolved while Islam has not. They are still doing the things that their ‘perfect man’ did. And the mainstream Muslims are still in major deception mode (taqiyya/kithman) when discussing Islam with us. When some countries start allowing sharia laws into their countries they start their decline into the same barbarism due to the barbaric acts those laws allow. And in our country they practice it in their little communities. In fact, even when sharia is not a part of the laws they bring their barbaric acts to our countries. And the ‘peaceful’ ones - well, they deny it or give excuses for it, and do nothing else about it. They don’t work on changing sharia laws or anything constructive - they just tell us how bad we are, or whatever (you know tu quoque types of excuses).

I don’t even know what you are defending or is it that you are trying to just bash Judeo-Christian societies? This seems to be a norm among secularists. If they really looked at Islam a little closer they would realize that in the end, they are only allowed death or conversion as an option in Islam’s idea of peace. And they are not even given the option of dhimmi (subjugated ones).

Maybe if you had a look into the recent news (say for the last couple of years) in Muslim lands you would find that there is no decrease in the crimes against non-muslims or their own women. In fact, people are fleeing it faster than not due to persecution in their lands. jihadwatch.org, or newsletters from Act for America, Daniel Pipes, and Walid Shoebat just to name a few sources. I know, I know you hate jihadwatch.org - they have links to the original articles though if you hate the comments by Mr. Spencer, or Hugh Fitzgerald (who is an atheist).

 

[sedonaman]

How long was the line to get into the south american dictatorships run by Catholic despots?

Of course they are practicing Catholicism. How willfully blind of me not to see it.

 

[chrisse]

I find it hypocritical for secularists to think they are so superior too. Communism has killed more people in the 20th Century than any other ‘ism’. The Nazis didn’t even kill as many as Stalin alone, or Mao alone. But, the Muslims have been right there trying their mightiest to get their ‘licks’ in. And all these ‘isms’ are human rights disasters.

Maybe go recheck our documents of the Founding Fathers, you will see mentioned God in there a few times so they were aware of some principles that the ‘isms’ forget.

And yes, I do think Christianity, and also Judaism, is superior to islam. We have changed and evolved while Islam has not. They are still doing the things that their ‘perfect man’ did. And the mainstream Muslims are still in major deception mode (taqiyya/kithman) when discussing Islam with us. When some countries start allowing sharia laws into their countries they start their decline into the same barbarism due to the barbaric acts those laws allow. And in our country they practice it in their little communities. In fact, even when sharia is not a part of the laws they bring their barbaric acts to our countries. And the ‘peaceful’ ones - well, they deny it or give excuses for it, and do nothing else about it. They don’t work on changing sharia laws or anything constructive - they just tell us how bad we are, or whatever (you know tu quoque types of excuses).

I don’t even know what you are defending or is it that you are trying to just bash Judeo-Christian societies? This seems to be a norm among secularists. If they really looked at Islam a little closer they would realize that in the end, they are only allowed death or conversion as an option in Islam’s idea of peace. And they are not even given the option of dhimmi (subjugated ones).

Maybe if you had a look into the recent news (say for the last couple of years) in Muslim lands you would find that there is no decrease in the crimes against non-muslims or their own women. In fact, people are fleeing it faster than not due to persecution in their lands. jihadwatch.org, or newsletters from Act for America, Daniel Pipes, and Walid Shoebat just to name a few sources. I know, I know you hate jihadwatch.org - they have links to the original articles though if you hate the comments by Mr. Spencer, or Hugh Fitzgerald (who is an atheist).

I agree. Also they have absolutely no idea of the complex relationship between Church and State. Firstly, it was the State that connected itself to the Church - Constantine.

Secondly, the Church does not have the death sentence. Never did. It was the State that had the death sentence within its criminal code. They ignore the many who were charged with treason who then went to commit heresy to get into the Inquisition. They ignore the numbers who avoided the civil punishment, preferring instead to use exaggerated figures and the false claim that the Church executed these people.

So, for example, we have approximately 3000-4000 people put to death by the civil authorities over the 350 year period of the Spanish Inquisition. 2000 in the first twenty years, before the Church stepped in with the Inquisition.

They don’t want to research the facts, they are attached to their historical narrative so popular amongst their bigoted group.

 

[Agabriel]

I agree. Also they have absolutely no idea of the complex relationship between Church and State. Firstly, it was the State that connected itself to the Church - Constantine.

Secondly, the Church does not have the death sentence. Never did. It was the State that had the death sentence within its criminal code. They ignore the many who were charged with treason who then went to commit heresy to get into the Inquisition. They ignore the numbers who avoided the civil punishment, preferring instead to use exaggerated figures and the false claim that the Church executed these people.

So, for example, we have approximately 3000-4000 people put to death by the civil authorities over the 350 year period of the Spanish Inquisition. 2000 in the first twenty years, before the Church stepped in with the Inquisition.

They don’t want to research the facts, they are attached to their historical narrative so popular amongst their bigoted group.

The guy sounds like he is so persecuted! The secularist societies are nothing but 'censorship hells!". Look at the communist countries, or even Islamic countries. Some of them still have ‘rehabilitation’ camps - basically places where they will be brainwashed further. Look at Saddam Hussein’s secularist government - he just killed them if he didn’t like what someone said, or for our benefit (just before the Gulf War) he would just take out the tongues and let them live.

Look at Europe since it has moved towards secularism. that is a good example of political correctness gone wild - or basically censorship if someone says something against someone and heavy fines. In the UK they don’t allow free speech anymore since the muslims might be offended (latest example being Geert Wilders not being allowed into the country).

 

[neploho]

The guy sounds like he is so persecuted! ).

I don’t understand

 

[chrisse]

The guy sounds like he is so persecuted! The secularist societies are nothing but 'censorship hells!". Look at the communist countries, or even Islamic countries. Some of them still have ‘rehabilitation’ camps - basically places where they will be brainwashed further. Look at Saddam Hussein’s secularist government - he just killed them if he didn’t like what someone said, or for our benefit (just before the Gulf War) he would just take out the tongues and let them live.

Look at Europe since it has moved towards secularism. that is a good example of political correctness gone wild - or basically censorship if someone says something against someone and heavy fines. In the UK they don’t allow free speech anymore since the muslims might be offended (latest example being Geert Wilders not being allowed into the country).

I call the secular humanists (or whatever today’s name is they are calling themselves) the children of the Enlightenment - dragging everyone straight back to the Darkenment.

 

[neploho]

I find it hypocritical for secularists to think they are so superior too. Communism has killed more people in the 20th Century than any other ‘ism’. The Nazis didn’t even kill as many as Stalin alone, or Mao alone. But, the Muslims have been right there trying their mightiest to get their ‘licks’ in. And all these ‘isms’ are human rights disasters.

Maybe go recheck our documents of the Founding Fathers, you will see mentioned God in there a few times so they were aware of some principles that the ‘isms’ forget.

And yes, I do think Christianity, and also Judaism, is superior to islam. We have changed and evolved while Islam has not. They are still doing the things that their ‘perfect man’ did. And the mainstream Muslims are still in major deception mode (taqiyya/kithman) when discussing Islam with us. When some countries start allowing sharia laws into their countries they start their decline into the same barbarism due to the barbaric acts those laws allow. And in our country they practice it in their little communities. In fact, even when sharia is not a part of the laws they bring their barbaric acts to our countries. And the ‘peaceful’ ones - well, they deny it or give excuses for it, and do nothing else about it. They don’t work on changing sharia laws or anything constructive - they just tell us how bad we are, or whatever (you know tu quoque types of excuses).

I don’t even know what you are defending or is it that you are trying to just bash Judeo-Christian societies? This seems to be a norm among secularists. If they really looked at Islam a little closer they would realize that in the end, they are only allowed death or conversion as an option in Islam’s idea of peace. And they are not even given the option of dhimmi (subjugated ones).

Maybe if you had a look into the recent news (say for the last couple of years) in Muslim lands you would find that there is no decrease in the crimes against non-muslims or their own women. In fact, people are fleeing it faster than not due to persecution in their lands. jihadwatch.org, or newsletters from Act for America, Daniel Pipes, and Walid Shoebat just to name a few sources. I know, I know you hate jihadwatch.org - they have links to the original articles though if you hate the comments by Mr. Spencer, or Hugh Fitzgerald (who is an atheist).

Communism is irrelevant to this discussion. I have no affiliation with communism and little respect for the ideology. You are correct that atheistic regimes have a lot to answer for in some parts of the world but I never claimed atheistic regimes were somehow flawless. What I did say is that today free speech in the west is not the product of Christendom but of secular republics. Your generalizations and less than impressive pseudo sociological analysis are really not relevant to what I have said. I have not defended the draconian elements of fiqh and never would. What I have pointed out would be the hypocrisy of a Jew or Christian being appalled at the idea of a prophet bringing stoning as a form of punishment. There is nothing I can think of that Muhammad did that your prophet’s did not commit. Moses committed shocking instances of what would today be ethnic cleansing, Solomon had concubines et cetera. In the case of Moses’ ethnic cleansing this was ordered by your God, as were his implementations of stoning and the regulation of slavery. If you wish to condemn Muslims continuing these practices then by all means to, although you ought to confine it to those Muslims who actually do. But please do not get on some high and mighty pedestal about the superiority of your ideology next to Islam, I see no grounds for such an attitude of moral supremacy. Yes you God has since ceased demanding the blood of the Caanites and did reverse his earlier feelings on killing a woman by smashing stones against her body (although he never did see slavery as all that bad) but the fact that he later reneged on these points does not alyer the fact that your God considers them morally permissible.

 

[Agabriel]

You really need to back up your generalizations with proof. I don’t recall any command that Moses gave to anyone to continue whatever behavior he did, or Solomon commanding us to continue his behaviors. In fact, Jesus stopped stonings, had a clear message of ‘one man and one woman for marriage’, etc. I have no idea why you would be defending Islam when you are so obviously bothered by what you perceive are injustices. What you bring up is thousands of years old.

If you are bothered by the Old Testament then you should be very bothered by what Muslims do to this very day and the ones who are defending those behaviors by either their inaction, or when they riot in the streets when their jihadists get attacked back after years of lobbing bombs into Israel.

I really do not know what your point is - maybe to show us your vocabulary - but other than that your defense of Islam when you abhor such behavior is confusing.

 

[neploho]

Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

I got the idea you felt persecuted from this line in one of your posts:

You had the freedom of expression and religion (or lack thereof) well before secularism ‘usurped the primacy of religion’. The Church hasn’t been the main power for centuries. And even before that it was up to the Kings/Queens which either allowed or disallowed the Church to have a grip on power.

The Church did not advocate capital punishment for heretics and have an index of prohibited texts?

 

[neploho]

You really need to back up your generalizations with proof. I have no idea why you would be defending Islam when you are so obviously bothered by what you perceive are injustices.

which generalizations? I am defending Islam and Muslims from the absurd claims individuals here. I have my own problems with Islam but I do make an effort to be fair.

 

[Agabriel]

which generalizations? I am defending Islam and Muslims from the absurd claims individuals here. I have my own problems with Islam but I do make an effort to be fair.

You are defending Islam and Muslims from what you are telling me what happened thousands of years ago in Judaism. While what is happening in Islam is happening now. And we bring up their prophet’s history because they don’t even know it! Jesus put an end to things such as polygamy, stonings, etc. As for the Church, there were bad men in positions of leadership that did bad things, but the base teachings did not condone such behavior and so things changed. Learn the difference between the base teachings and the behaviors of bad men. (well, mostly men - I am sure there were bad women too, it is just that men were in charge and mostly in positions of leadership in the past)

The base teachings of Islam do indeed condone such behaviors that is why it is still going on. And no Muslim with a ‘smooth tongue’ is even attempting to stop them. Instead we find out that the jihadists are being supported by these moderate Muslims. And not only that they give them moral support them when they riot for them when the jihadists get attacked after years of attacking others.

You are defending the indefensible, the intolerant. In the end, the same three options apply to you too (only if you are ‘of the Book’) - death, conversion or subjugation. You are only allowed subjugation if you are ‘of the Book’ which means either a Christian, Jew or a Zorastrian.

 

[neploho]

You are defending Islam and Muslims from what you are telling me what happened thousands of years ago in Judaism.

No I am not. I am not defending the practive of stoning at all.

While what is happening in Islam is happening now. And we bring up their prophet’s history because they don’t even know it! Jesus put an end to things such as polygamy, stonings, etc. As for the Church, there were bad men in positions of leadership that did bad things, but the base teachings did not condone such behavior and so things changed. Learn the difference between the base teachings and the behaviors of bad men. (well, mostly men - I am sure there were bad women too, it is just that men were in charge and mostly in positions of leadership in the past)

St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Thomas Moore were a bad men?

The base teachings of Islam do indeed condone such behaviors that is why it is still going on. And no Muslim with a ‘smooth tongue’ is even attempting to stop them. Instead we find out that the jihadists are being supported by these moderate Muslims. And not only that they give them moral support them when they riot for them when the jihadists get attacked after years of attacking others.

You are defending the indefensible, the intolerant. In the end, the same three options apply to you too (only if you are ‘of the Book’) - death, conversion or subjugation. You are only allowed subjugation if you are ‘of the Book’ which means either a Christian, Jew or a Zorastrian.

Actual Hinduism has been included as well. I would never wish to live under an Islamic state, but I would hardly fair better under a Christian state if Christendom is any example.

 

[sedonaman]

I have my own problems with Islam but I do make an effort to be fair.

In view of its history, being “fair” to Islam would be like being fair to the Mafia, as this non-Christian author observes:

The Decrees of Islam
by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
31 Dec, 2008
islam-watch.org/Brahmachari/Decrees-of-Islam-1.htm

This is not to say there are no well-meaning Muslims, but wherever Islam rules, the so-called “moderates” are nowhere to be seen or heard.

 

[Agabriel]

No I am not. I am not defending the practive of stoning at all.

St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Thomas Moore were a bad men?

Actual Hinduism has been included as well. I would never wish to live under an Islamic state, but I would hardly fair better under a Christian state if Christendom is any example.

If Aquinas and Moore did bad things then yes, they are bad. Like I have said quite often - I don’t even judge Muhammad. I think he had a brain disease, actually a few things wrong with him, and so I leave the judging to God. I don’t judge Hitler, Stalin, etc either because the same thing might have happened to them too (brain disorders). I do have a problem with the ones who willingly follow those types of men though. As I have a problem with the Muslims who are in our country who can follow such a one as Muhammad. They have all the freedoms to do research on that guy and it seems they do not, but still defend him and know very little of the history of Islam. And I find out daily how little they know of their own Islamic texts when I read their posts.

You do indeed fair better in a Christian state and to state any differently is not even being honest in your discussion. The USA is over 80% Christian (at least the last time I heard), but our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values. Europe used to be more Christian and now that they are turning secular it is becoming much less free, as we have seen with the suing of people who have tried to exercise their freedoms of expression.

From what I am reading in your posts you feel that having freedoms is a restriction on you. If you feel that way then go live in one of your secular ‘heavens’. Don’t say anything wrong because you might be sued. that is if they haven’t blocked the internet site. If you even get the full news in their news medias. Because that is one of the basic things they first of all take away - the freedom of expression. Ask Geert Wilders and Fallaci.

I haven’t seen too much different from Islamic countries either. And the Muslims here seem to like to wave signs that say things like, ‘freedoms go to hell’. And they do the same thing in our colleges with their anti-semitism rants and crimes growing. It also is a growing phenomenon that they also like to shout down Conservatives. Even when those conservatives are trying to bring to light the persecution of Muslim women in Muslim areas and lands. Where are the lefties, especially since they used to be for women’s rights? answer: They are right there with the Muslims shouting down the conservatives. Why is that?

You are defending the indefensible and I will say that many like you are too.

 

[neploho]

In view of its history, being “fair” to Islam would be like being fair to the Mafia, as this non-Christian author observes:

The Decrees of Islam
by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
31 Dec, 2008
islam-watch.org/Brahmachari/Decrees-of-Islam-1.htm

And Christianities many many atrocities do not mean one should not try to be fair to it.

This is not to say there are no well-meaning Muslims, but wherever Islam rules, the so-called “moderates” are nowhere to be seen or heard.

How do you define a moderate?

 

[planten]

AlGabriel and sedonaman, Do you agree that there should be compulsion in religion or no Compulsion in the matters of faith? that is the topic so please come to the topic and give your expert opinion. What do you say, Compulsion or no Compulsion. Welcome.