Muslim Outrage
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
Another reason I suspect there is so much conflict with Islam is a certain confusion. At the time of the founding of Islam, it was well ahead of its time, which thus naturally pushed the Mu'min (the Muslim community) forward considerably, established a Muslim civilization and gave teh Muslims their golden age as the centre of civilization, and even laid the foundations of the renaissance. It did not explicitly give women equality, but certainly granted them more rights than anything they'd ever had previously. Usury was prohibited, laws relating to slavery were toughenned, etc.
Yet today, how does a modern economy function if interest is not allowed on investment? Rights for women are fine, but now we've moved on to equality. Islam laid the foundation for the nation state, but it doesn't provide much detail in how to run an internaitonal organization such as the UN, etc. Striving to follow the teachings of Islam during its infancy thrusted them forward in trying to apply laws well ahead of their time. Trying to hang firmly to the same laws today is now holding them back! Needless to say, that when we combine this with nostalgia for their great historical civilization, it leads to frustration and confusion as to how a religion whose laws were so effective before are now proving detrimental, which needless to say can only shake their faith. And fo some, shaking ones faith is frightening. From that standpoint, I can still understand to some extent what Muslims are going through. they're trying to hang on as tightly as they can to their glorious past which is now slipping form tehir hands.
Yet today, how does a modern economy function if interest is not allowed on investment? Rights for women are fine, but now we've moved on to equality. Islam laid the foundation for the nation state, but it doesn't provide much detail in how to run an internaitonal organization such as the UN, etc. Striving to follow the teachings of Islam during its infancy thrusted them forward in trying to apply laws well ahead of their time. Trying to hang firmly to the same laws today is now holding them back! Needless to say, that when we combine this with nostalgia for their great historical civilization, it leads to frustration and confusion as to how a religion whose laws were so effective before are now proving detrimental, which needless to say can only shake their faith. And fo some, shaking ones faith is frightening. From that standpoint, I can still understand to some extent what Muslims are going through. they're trying to hang on as tightly as they can to their glorious past which is now slipping form tehir hands.
Well Machjo
I see you are painting a wonderful picture of peaceful Islam and the small minority of fanatics who spoil it for a beautiful religion.
I challenge you that would be fine if the people practicing that faith refrain from immigration to countries and then try to insert their own laws into the laws of the country. Any immigrant, whether Muslim or agnostic, immigrates with the expectation of following the laws of the land, is respectful of those laws and commits to the betterment of the country, not the downfall.
I challenge you that at this very moment there are Islamic fanatics dedicated to creating the downfall of many western civilizations in many lands. If immigration is not going to weed these monsters from those who come in peace to contribute to a new land....who will do it? The local mullahs? And how do we determine which is peaceful and which is mad?
What we have witnessed in our western democracies in Europe and the U.S. even as far away as Australia and Indonesia, are those who have received the beneficence of an open arms government systems which treat all people as equals - and in return we have 9/11, railway bombings, school destruction, peaceful people killed while going about their personal days....
Is this what you are recreating as "peaceful" members of our society???
And your words: It did not explicitly give women equality, but certainly granted them more rights than anything they'd ever had previously. Surely you jest! Women under Sha'ria Law are treated like animals - what "more rights" are you speaking of? Less barbaric mutilation of their genitals?
I wonder if you yourself are not on some kind of recruiting mission.
Tell me - if you and your wife divorced...did you have to repeat the divorce three times, or did you go through the legal necessaries of western law to fully divorce her??? I direct your attention to the kind of muslim who frightens me...who wishes to rewrite the legal system or make special exemptions for those of Islamic faith.
http://tinyurl.com/ge5q3
Over the years many stories have been published in the media about western women marrying middle eastern men, to have families with them, and to lose their children (and the husband) as he returns to his familial home in the middle east, and the wife is refused visitation to her children. All of these were happening long before the recent uprisings.
It has been going on a long time. The article I have posted is an example of how it is expected that Islamic religion pre-empts all local (and Superior Court) laws. And you want people to accept that we should embrace this??? Invite this into our peaceful lands?
We have witnessed the truth - it is too late to paint another portrait. Ask the people in Bali, Spain, Australia, France, Britain, New York, and the list goes on....
Whether the Muslim religion had a glorious past or not is irrelevant in the here and now. Christianity had a violent past but we don't drag around excuses for our behavior through religious belief, and if we try, generally the western legal system overrides the excuses.
Which is how it should be. Separation of church and state.
I see you are painting a wonderful picture of peaceful Islam and the small minority of fanatics who spoil it for a beautiful religion.
I challenge you that would be fine if the people practicing that faith refrain from immigration to countries and then try to insert their own laws into the laws of the country. Any immigrant, whether Muslim or agnostic, immigrates with the expectation of following the laws of the land, is respectful of those laws and commits to the betterment of the country, not the downfall.
I challenge you that at this very moment there are Islamic fanatics dedicated to creating the downfall of many western civilizations in many lands. If immigration is not going to weed these monsters from those who come in peace to contribute to a new land....who will do it? The local mullahs? And how do we determine which is peaceful and which is mad?
What we have witnessed in our western democracies in Europe and the U.S. even as far away as Australia and Indonesia, are those who have received the beneficence of an open arms government systems which treat all people as equals - and in return we have 9/11, railway bombings, school destruction, peaceful people killed while going about their personal days....
Is this what you are recreating as "peaceful" members of our society???
And your words: It did not explicitly give women equality, but certainly granted them more rights than anything they'd ever had previously. Surely you jest! Women under Sha'ria Law are treated like animals - what "more rights" are you speaking of? Less barbaric mutilation of their genitals?
I wonder if you yourself are not on some kind of recruiting mission.
Tell me - if you and your wife divorced...did you have to repeat the divorce three times, or did you go through the legal necessaries of western law to fully divorce her??? I direct your attention to the kind of muslim who frightens me...who wishes to rewrite the legal system or make special exemptions for those of Islamic faith.
http://tinyurl.com/ge5q3
Over the years many stories have been published in the media about western women marrying middle eastern men, to have families with them, and to lose their children (and the husband) as he returns to his familial home in the middle east, and the wife is refused visitation to her children. All of these were happening long before the recent uprisings.
It has been going on a long time. The article I have posted is an example of how it is expected that Islamic religion pre-empts all local (and Superior Court) laws. And you want people to accept that we should embrace this??? Invite this into our peaceful lands?
We have witnessed the truth - it is too late to paint another portrait. Ask the people in Bali, Spain, Australia, France, Britain, New York, and the list goes on....
Whether the Muslim religion had a glorious past or not is irrelevant in the here and now. Christianity had a violent past but we don't drag around excuses for our behavior through religious belief, and if we try, generally the western legal system overrides the excuses.
Which is how it should be. Separation of church and state.
:x So now things are going from Stupid to Retarted.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/684470.html
Indian minister said offering $10m for beheading cartoonist
An Indian state minister has offered a reward of more than $10 million and a prospective killer's weight in gold to anyone who beheads one of the cartoonists who angered Muslims by depcting the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, the London Sunday Times reported this week.
The offer follows a Pakistani cleric's reward of $1 million and a car for the killing of one of the cartoonists.
The new, larger reward was announced by Yaqoob Qureshi, minister of minority welfare in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, in a speech to constituents in Meerit, northeast of Delhi.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/684470.html
Indian minister said offering $10m for beheading cartoonist
An Indian state minister has offered a reward of more than $10 million and a prospective killer's weight in gold to anyone who beheads one of the cartoonists who angered Muslims by depcting the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, the London Sunday Times reported this week.
The offer follows a Pakistani cleric's reward of $1 million and a car for the killing of one of the cartoonists.
The new, larger reward was announced by Yaqoob Qureshi, minister of minority welfare in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, in a speech to constituents in Meerit, northeast of Delhi.
Wednesday's Child
Sorry, but I'm a little confused by your statements.
I see you are painting a wonderful picture of peaceful Islam and the small minority of fanatics who spoil it for a beautiful religion.
Whether the fanatics are a minority or not I don't know
I challenge you that would be fine if the people practicing that faith refrain from immigration to countries and then try to insert their own laws into the laws of the country. Any immigrant, whether Muslim or agnostic, immigrates with the expectation of following the laws of the land, is respectful of those laws and commits to the betterment of the country, not the downfall.
"that would be fine..." I'm not sure what is "that". I assume it was referring to something in one of my posts, but it's vague, since if you read my posts, especially recently, they are quite a mix of admiration for Islam and a certain fear of its falling into a cerain Dark Age. So please clarify specifically what you're referring to here, thanks.
I challenge you that at this very moment there are Islamic fanatics dedicated to creating the downfall of many western civilizations in many lands. If immigration is not going to weed these monsters from those who come in peace to contribute to a new land....who will do it? The local mullahs? And how do we determine which is peaceful and which is mad?
Actually, in one of my recent posts, I'd blasted the Mullahs; they are extremely dangerous, and I could even accept a banning of Mullahs in Canada, believe it or not. I can't underestate how dangerous they are to the Muslim community itself.
As for immigration, we do need to weed the terrorists, but how. Plese feel free to provide an answer. CSIS is doing a reasonably good job I'm sure. But I'm also sure some are getting through.
What we have witnessed in our western democracies in Europe and the U.S. even as far away as Australia and Indonesia, are those who have received the beneficence of an open arms government systems which treat all people as equals - and in return we have 9/11, railway bombings, school destruction, peaceful people killed while going about their personal days....
Is this what you are recreating as "peaceful" members of our society???
Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You're speaking as if there's a major disagreement between us, so I'm reading your post trying to find the major disagreements. My confusion stems from the fact that you seem to agreeing with me, at least in principle to much of what you're saying, but in an argumentative manner. :?
And your words: It did not explicitly give women equality, but certainly granted them more rights than anything they'd ever had previously. Surely you jest! Women under Sha'ria Law are treated like animals - what "more rights" are you speaking of? Less barbaric mutilation of their genitals?
Reading about the world in which Muhammad was born might be very revealing. It is well documented that he had been born to such a perverse society that men would literally bury their 7-year old daughters alive, men could threaten their wives with death for bearing him a daughter, and sons would claim each others' mothers and sisters as lawful property upon the death of their father. Conquering tribes would kill all the men and claim all the women and children as slaves. Men could divorce their wives at will, and she had no recourse whatsoever. And at that time, poligamy not only occurred in Arabia, but Europe as well, though the situation in Europe at that time was still much better. The Qur'an says nothing of genital mutilaiton, and should you read it in light of the society in which it was revealed, you'll find that while it never explicitely granted equality, it certainly granted women not only protection from the barbary mentionned above, but even granted them otehr special rights relating to the husband's responsibility towards her in the event of divorce, her right to witnesses in the event of an accusation against her, etc. I think I've said enough on that. But certainly if you read up on the circumstances of teh time, and read the Qur'an, you'll see that it was indeed light years ahead of its time.
I wonder if you yourself are not on some kind of recruiting mission.
Tell me - if you and your wife divorced...did you have to repeat the divorce three times, or did you go through the legal necessaries of western law to fully divorce her??? I direct your attention to the kind of muslim who frightens me...who wishes to rewrite the legal system or make special exemptions for those of Islamic faith.
A recruiting mission for what? I'm not a Muslim, and never have been, so why sould I have repeated the divorce three times? My wife wasn't Muslim either, although she hadd been. A major contributor to the divorce did in fact have to do with outide religious harassement and intimidation, and so she made teh decision to divorce civilly whether aI liked it or not. Although that's a personal issue which I'd rather not discuss or even think about for that matter. I only brought it up within the context of Islamic fanaticism today and how it can affect the wider community.
http://tinyurl.com/ge5q3
Over the years many stories have been published in the media about western women marrying middle eastern men, to have families with them, and to lose their children (and the husband) as he returns to his familial home in the middle east, and the wife is refused visitation to her children. All of these were happening long before the recent uprisings.
It has been going on a long time. The article I have posted is an example of how it is expected that Islamic religion pre-empts all local (and Superior Court) laws. And you want people to accept that we should embrace this??? Invite this into our peaceful lands?
We have witnessed the truth - it is too late to paint another portrait. Ask the people in Bali, Spain, Australia, France, Britain, New York, and the list goes on....
Whether the Muslim religion had a glorious past or not is irrelevant in the here and now. Christianity had a violent past but we don't drag around excuses for our behavior through religious belief, and if we try, generally the western legal system overrides the excuses.
Which is how it should be. Separation of church and state.[/quote]
1. I don't understand the relevance of the article to my previous posts.
2. If you've ever been devorced before, I'm sure you could understand that it's not something one wants to dwell on. Thank you very much.
I'd made my reference to it specifically in light of the original topic of the thread , that's it. Not to start nosing about my private life, thank you.
Sorry, but I'm a little confused by your statements.
I see you are painting a wonderful picture of peaceful Islam and the small minority of fanatics who spoil it for a beautiful religion.
Whether the fanatics are a minority or not I don't know
I challenge you that would be fine if the people practicing that faith refrain from immigration to countries and then try to insert their own laws into the laws of the country. Any immigrant, whether Muslim or agnostic, immigrates with the expectation of following the laws of the land, is respectful of those laws and commits to the betterment of the country, not the downfall.
"that would be fine..." I'm not sure what is "that". I assume it was referring to something in one of my posts, but it's vague, since if you read my posts, especially recently, they are quite a mix of admiration for Islam and a certain fear of its falling into a cerain Dark Age. So please clarify specifically what you're referring to here, thanks.
I challenge you that at this very moment there are Islamic fanatics dedicated to creating the downfall of many western civilizations in many lands. If immigration is not going to weed these monsters from those who come in peace to contribute to a new land....who will do it? The local mullahs? And how do we determine which is peaceful and which is mad?
Actually, in one of my recent posts, I'd blasted the Mullahs; they are extremely dangerous, and I could even accept a banning of Mullahs in Canada, believe it or not. I can't underestate how dangerous they are to the Muslim community itself.
As for immigration, we do need to weed the terrorists, but how. Plese feel free to provide an answer. CSIS is doing a reasonably good job I'm sure. But I'm also sure some are getting through.
What we have witnessed in our western democracies in Europe and the U.S. even as far away as Australia and Indonesia, are those who have received the beneficence of an open arms government systems which treat all people as equals - and in return we have 9/11, railway bombings, school destruction, peaceful people killed while going about their personal days....
Is this what you are recreating as "peaceful" members of our society???
Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You're speaking as if there's a major disagreement between us, so I'm reading your post trying to find the major disagreements. My confusion stems from the fact that you seem to agreeing with me, at least in principle to much of what you're saying, but in an argumentative manner. :?
And your words: It did not explicitly give women equality, but certainly granted them more rights than anything they'd ever had previously. Surely you jest! Women under Sha'ria Law are treated like animals - what "more rights" are you speaking of? Less barbaric mutilation of their genitals?
Reading about the world in which Muhammad was born might be very revealing. It is well documented that he had been born to such a perverse society that men would literally bury their 7-year old daughters alive, men could threaten their wives with death for bearing him a daughter, and sons would claim each others' mothers and sisters as lawful property upon the death of their father. Conquering tribes would kill all the men and claim all the women and children as slaves. Men could divorce their wives at will, and she had no recourse whatsoever. And at that time, poligamy not only occurred in Arabia, but Europe as well, though the situation in Europe at that time was still much better. The Qur'an says nothing of genital mutilaiton, and should you read it in light of the society in which it was revealed, you'll find that while it never explicitely granted equality, it certainly granted women not only protection from the barbary mentionned above, but even granted them otehr special rights relating to the husband's responsibility towards her in the event of divorce, her right to witnesses in the event of an accusation against her, etc. I think I've said enough on that. But certainly if you read up on the circumstances of teh time, and read the Qur'an, you'll see that it was indeed light years ahead of its time.
I wonder if you yourself are not on some kind of recruiting mission.
Tell me - if you and your wife divorced...did you have to repeat the divorce three times, or did you go through the legal necessaries of western law to fully divorce her??? I direct your attention to the kind of muslim who frightens me...who wishes to rewrite the legal system or make special exemptions for those of Islamic faith.
A recruiting mission for what? I'm not a Muslim, and never have been, so why sould I have repeated the divorce three times? My wife wasn't Muslim either, although she hadd been. A major contributor to the divorce did in fact have to do with outide religious harassement and intimidation, and so she made teh decision to divorce civilly whether aI liked it or not. Although that's a personal issue which I'd rather not discuss or even think about for that matter. I only brought it up within the context of Islamic fanaticism today and how it can affect the wider community.
http://tinyurl.com/ge5q3
Over the years many stories have been published in the media about western women marrying middle eastern men, to have families with them, and to lose their children (and the husband) as he returns to his familial home in the middle east, and the wife is refused visitation to her children. All of these were happening long before the recent uprisings.
It has been going on a long time. The article I have posted is an example of how it is expected that Islamic religion pre-empts all local (and Superior Court) laws. And you want people to accept that we should embrace this??? Invite this into our peaceful lands?
We have witnessed the truth - it is too late to paint another portrait. Ask the people in Bali, Spain, Australia, France, Britain, New York, and the list goes on....
Whether the Muslim religion had a glorious past or not is irrelevant in the here and now. Christianity had a violent past but we don't drag around excuses for our behavior through religious belief, and if we try, generally the western legal system overrides the excuses.
Which is how it should be. Separation of church and state.[/quote]
1. I don't understand the relevance of the article to my previous posts.
2. If you've ever been devorced before, I'm sure you could understand that it's not something one wants to dwell on. Thank you very much.
I'd made my reference to it specifically in light of the original topic of the thread , that's it. Not to start nosing about my private life, thank you.
Over the years many stories have been published in the media about western women marrying middle eastern men, to have families with them, and to lose their children (and the husband) as he returns to his familial home in the middle east, and the wife is refused visitation to her children. All of these were happening long before the recent uprisings.
It has been going on a long time. The article I have posted is an example of how it is expected that Islamic religion pre-empts all local (and Superior Court) laws. And you want people to accept that we should embrace this??? Invite this into our peaceful lands?
We have witnessed the truth - it is too late to paint another portrait. Ask the people in Bali, Spain, Australia, France, Britain, New York, and the list goes on....
I'm well aware of that. I've personally had friends who were closet apostates of Islam who feared retribution, in Canada! So you're not telling me anything I don't know.
Whether the Muslim religion had a glorious past or not is irrelevant in the here and now. Christianity had a violent past but we don't drag around excuses for our behavior through religious belief, and if we try, generally the western legal system overrides the excuses.
Which is how it should be. Separation of church and state.
I really don't know where you're comming from; obviously you had a bad day. When did I ever suggest that Islam's past excused its present? When did I ever suggest that Canada ought to adopt Shari'a? Again, I really don't know where this post of yours is comming from!?
Please explain!
It has been going on a long time. The article I have posted is an example of how it is expected that Islamic religion pre-empts all local (and Superior Court) laws. And you want people to accept that we should embrace this??? Invite this into our peaceful lands?
We have witnessed the truth - it is too late to paint another portrait. Ask the people in Bali, Spain, Australia, France, Britain, New York, and the list goes on....
I'm well aware of that. I've personally had friends who were closet apostates of Islam who feared retribution, in Canada! So you're not telling me anything I don't know.
Whether the Muslim religion had a glorious past or not is irrelevant in the here and now. Christianity had a violent past but we don't drag around excuses for our behavior through religious belief, and if we try, generally the western legal system overrides the excuses.
Which is how it should be. Separation of church and state.
I really don't know where you're comming from; obviously you had a bad day. When did I ever suggest that Islam's past excused its present? When did I ever suggest that Canada ought to adopt Shari'a? Again, I really don't know where this post of yours is comming from!?
Please explain!
Wednesday's Child said:
Here's the thing. Most things that the Muslims were up to, several hundred years ago were progressive. They were granted more rights then they'd ever had before.....500 yrs ago. Now I may be off with the date, but the point stands.
I just love it when people use that argument. I have no idea why they use it, since it's soooooo outdated.
I’ve in Toronto the last 5 days and am not seeing any visible outrage or agitation by Muslims. Even globally the numbers of individuals in any demonstration are small. The extremists have probably elevated the issue by making it appear that all Muslims share their view. This does not mean there is not concern. It just means that a caricature and strawman argument is being constructed for political purposes. This argument is reinforced by these idiotic claims that showing solidarity with the Danish flag is insulting to all Muslims. One needs to be careful when one is taking up the rights of representation for a group one does not belong to for if it is done in a way where there is prejudice it is a disservice to the group. This especially pertains if recognition of rights are selective. For example, Christians should demonstrate tolerance and embrace new ideas when Muslims are not required to. This type of argument is extremely divisive yet it is one that is being continuously expounded.
Said1 said:
I wasn't actually using it as a defence. I've never even been a Muslim myself all my life, even though I know much about it. Do to the negativeity against islam, I alwasy try to find some positives about it, especially since it is very much a misunderstood religion.
But if you read my posts, you'll see that I share the same concerns about extremism that you do.
SO I SINCERELY APOLOGISE. I'LL SENSOR MYSELF FROM NOW ON AND MAKE SURE I SAY NOTHING WHICH COULD POSSIBLY PAINT ISLAM IN A POSITIVE LIGHT. Better?
Machjo said:
NO NEED TO SHOUT. People do use that argument all the time. The use of the term "people" should have indicated to you that I meant others, not you specifically.
I know that all Muslims do not adhere to the strict laws of Sharia.
I know there are many peaceful, Muslims.
There are many Muslims who are not.
There are many shades in between.
BETTER?
Machjo
There is hate in my heart and it comes out in my writing. I apologize to you - however it was you who initiated this discussion and I disagreed with some statements you wrote.
It appeared to me you were giving us a pacific and illusory rendition of Islamic faith. I believe it to be far from that. I have but eight people in friendship from the middle east - a family from Lebanon and a family from Jordan. They have all broken with their religion for the time being "until they come to their senses" and they continue to worship privately within a small group of their friends in a home.
I wish I had more time - but work and my tax guy calls - and I too apologize for coming out so aggressively however that is how I feel about this monstrosity where kind, gentle nations opening their doors to those who have no better intentions than to kill for some mad off-shoot of what you propose to be a peaceful religion.
I have rarely witnessed any religion which does not have violence attached to it and I wrote "Christianity" because it is the only religion I am familiar with. Perhaps the Tibetan Monestaries are the only example of peaceful coexistence within religious belief, but the devout monks remove themselves from civilization. To be alone with oneself - perhaps there would be no need for violence.
Maybe that would be a positive outcome for Islam. Remove themselves from democratic societies if they cannot change.
You yourself brought up the divorce with your wife - and indicated she was of Islamic faith - or a lapsed muslim (is there such a thing?).... I wondered if you had to perform an Islamic divorce or did you have a legal secular one. If I stepped over the personal information line I do apologize - however as you introduced the topic I felt it was ok to inquire.
I will have to leave it at there - except ALL religions have their bad histories. What I am trying to do here is to separate religious law and democratic legal system of a country.
If a country is going to follow and adhere to a strict Islamic law - then the believers should not expect to immigrate to another kind of society in a country which adheres to secular law. And certainly not expect the resident communities to change to suit.
Immigration is the key and whether you like it or not, the middle eastern male has written his own ticket for exceptional scrutiny - that wasn't part of immigration law until recent deeds of violence - even if it is a "minority" of Islamic fanatics... we cannot know know who is who..... They all must be judged as to their suitability for residence in a democratic society.
It is called safety for the people and common sense. This "Get To Know Your Muslim" kind of kumbaya right now sticks in my heart!
Finally: Please don't ever censor yourself over one of my snits. I am prone to them when it concerns my anxiety over my strong feelings against the people of the middle east. It is my battle to overcome and not yours. If you can change my mind/heart I would welcome it.
There is hate in my heart and it comes out in my writing. I apologize to you - however it was you who initiated this discussion and I disagreed with some statements you wrote.
It appeared to me you were giving us a pacific and illusory rendition of Islamic faith. I believe it to be far from that. I have but eight people in friendship from the middle east - a family from Lebanon and a family from Jordan. They have all broken with their religion for the time being "until they come to their senses" and they continue to worship privately within a small group of their friends in a home.
I wish I had more time - but work and my tax guy calls - and I too apologize for coming out so aggressively however that is how I feel about this monstrosity where kind, gentle nations opening their doors to those who have no better intentions than to kill for some mad off-shoot of what you propose to be a peaceful religion.
I have rarely witnessed any religion which does not have violence attached to it and I wrote "Christianity" because it is the only religion I am familiar with. Perhaps the Tibetan Monestaries are the only example of peaceful coexistence within religious belief, but the devout monks remove themselves from civilization. To be alone with oneself - perhaps there would be no need for violence.
Maybe that would be a positive outcome for Islam. Remove themselves from democratic societies if they cannot change.
You yourself brought up the divorce with your wife - and indicated she was of Islamic faith - or a lapsed muslim (is there such a thing?).... I wondered if you had to perform an Islamic divorce or did you have a legal secular one. If I stepped over the personal information line I do apologize - however as you introduced the topic I felt it was ok to inquire.
I will have to leave it at there - except ALL religions have their bad histories. What I am trying to do here is to separate religious law and democratic legal system of a country.
If a country is going to follow and adhere to a strict Islamic law - then the believers should not expect to immigrate to another kind of society in a country which adheres to secular law. And certainly not expect the resident communities to change to suit.
Immigration is the key and whether you like it or not, the middle eastern male has written his own ticket for exceptional scrutiny - that wasn't part of immigration law until recent deeds of violence - even if it is a "minority" of Islamic fanatics... we cannot know know who is who..... They all must be judged as to their suitability for residence in a democratic society.
It is called safety for the people and common sense. This "Get To Know Your Muslim" kind of kumbaya right now sticks in my heart!
Finally: Please don't ever censor yourself over one of my snits. I am prone to them when it concerns my anxiety over my strong feelings against the people of the middle east. It is my battle to overcome and not yours. If you can change my mind/heart I would welcome it.
The only people Muslims should be outraged at are Muslims themselves. The bad reputation they have is of their own fault and creation. Other people just didn't decide to start talking smack about them out of the blue!
Nor should those "other people" close their minds so readily! This situation cannot be considered to be exclusively black and white; if there are Muslim extremists committing crimes abroad, but our Muslim associations here denounce terrorism and denounce extremist, why should such a thing reflect badly upon them?
The Blacks,Asians, and Natives are all breathing a sigh of relief at the flow of hatred being directed at the Moslems,because for now,they are being left mostly alone 
One more thing before I launch into the world...
I see much written about the United States from writers all over the world - there isn't much inhibition practiced in denouncing them for the attack on Iraq, or their imperialistic corporate hijacking or whatever large words you wish to use.
How Americans want to rule the world and own every resource possible for them and their huge habituation for others' property.
Americans are killing people daily in the middle east. How can it be okay to speak up against the U.S. and not against the middle east?
Is this kind of rhetorical blame, grouping all Americans into the same category....similar to what we are now discussing regarding Islamic fanatics and their peaceful brothers and sisters?
Yet one is acceptable and one is not. How can we speak of equity when inequity is practiced on a daily basis.
And it isn't about closed minds or racism.... it is about trying to learn, and expose the truth ... no matter how hard it is to view.
And if the truth is not the real truth, who will change our hearts?
I see much written about the United States from writers all over the world - there isn't much inhibition practiced in denouncing them for the attack on Iraq, or their imperialistic corporate hijacking or whatever large words you wish to use.
How Americans want to rule the world and own every resource possible for them and their huge habituation for others' property.
Americans are killing people daily in the middle east. How can it be okay to speak up against the U.S. and not against the middle east?
Is this kind of rhetorical blame, grouping all Americans into the same category....similar to what we are now discussing regarding Islamic fanatics and their peaceful brothers and sisters?
Yet one is acceptable and one is not. How can we speak of equity when inequity is practiced on a daily basis.
And it isn't about closed minds or racism.... it is about trying to learn, and expose the truth ... no matter how hard it is to view.
And if the truth is not the real truth, who will change our hearts?
Re: RE: Muslim Outrage
Simply denouncing isn't good enough. Take some action. Why wasn't there Cartoon type demonstrations when 9/11 occured or the London bombings? Were was their outrage then. How come a simple press release was sufficient to cover the deaths of thousands, but massive protests are require over a hand drawn cartoon?
FiveParadox said:
Simply denouncing isn't good enough. Take some action. Why wasn't there Cartoon type demonstrations when 9/11 occured or the London bombings? Were was their outrage then. How come a simple press release was sufficient to cover the deaths of thousands, but massive protests are require over a hand drawn cartoon?
Re: RE: Muslim Outrage
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)
"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people...They desire nothing but your ruin....You believe in the entire Book...When they meet you they say: 'We, too, are believers.' But when alone, they bite their finger-tips with rage." (Surah 3:118, 119)
"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)
"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
FiveParadox said:
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)
"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people...They desire nothing but your ruin....You believe in the entire Book...When they meet you they say: 'We, too, are believers.' But when alone, they bite their finger-tips with rage." (Surah 3:118, 119)
"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)
"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
Re: RE: Muslim Outrage
Hey, but remember, they are a religion of peace and equality!
I think not said:
Hey, but remember, they are a religion of peace and equality!