No new Mosques?

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Because Muslims are asking for the same rights in non-Muslim nations.

We never said the rights are the same in a non-Muslim society and an Islaamic one.

Why do you care whether or not the West acts according to its own laws? If they want to change their laws and become repressive towards Muslims, who are you to tell them they can't?

1.) Because I live in a non-Muslim country & I expect them to follow through with their end of the deal.

The same would be true in the case of an Islaamic nation's laws and the Dhimmis (i.e. the non-Muslims who agreed to pay the jizyah (in the case of adult men who are not poverty-stricken) & abide by whatever treaty was agreed upon). If the Islaamic nation is not ruling according to this treaty, then they should be called out on it.

2.) If they want to change their laws so that Muslims are not allowed to perform obligatory Islaamic things, again, I said Muslims would be required to leave if they are able to. If they want to change their laws to say that Muslims cannot preach the religion, then I will surely point out that they are not ruling according to their own laws. But in the end, if the law does not change, Muslims would just have to leave:

Verily! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves, they (angels) say (to them): "In what (condition) were you?" They reply: "We were weak and oppressed on earth." They (angels) say: "Was not the earth of Allāh spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?" Such men will find their abode in Hell - What an evil destination! (An-Nisa 4:97)

Before the formation of Pakistan, it was not illegal for non-Muslim people in that area to prosyletize. Now it is. If the laws of an area or country can be changed to restrict non-Muslims, why can they not be changed to restrict Muslims?

It's under Muslim leadership. If the Christians want to exert their influence, then they should take over (though it's not likely to happen).

Don't get me wrong. I am not in favour of banning the hijab or banning Muslims from prosyletizing. But I see it as extremely hypocritical when some Muslims speak out for religious freedoms for Muslims in the West, while defending restricting religious freedoms of non-Muslims in Muslim majority nations. Defend freedom for all or hypocritically defend freedom only for some.

And I think it is extremely hypocritical when some Christians expect people to condemn their religion for certain rules when those rules pale in comparison to God allegedly ordering people to kill innocent babies and yet that commandment is not condemned.

 

[smaneck]

And I think it is extremely hypocritical when some Christians expect people to condemn their religion for certain rules when those rules pale in comparison to God allegedly ordering people to kill innocent babies and yet that commandment is not condemned.

Most historians, however, would say it never happened. There is no evidence of a wholesale genocide of any of the enemies of the Hebrew people.

 

[TG123]

We never said the rights are the same in a non-Muslim society and an Islaamic one.

So are you saying that Muslims should dictate how both Islaamic and non-Muslim societies are to behave, or did I misunderstand you?

1.) Because I live in a non-Muslim country & I expect them to follow through with their end of the deal.

Why is preventing them from changing their laws or coming up with new ones, like Pakistan did?

The same would be true in the case of an Islaamic nation's laws and the Dhimmis (i.e. the non-Muslims who agreed to pay the jizyah (in the case of adult men who are not poverty-stricken) & abide by whatever treaty was agreed upon). If the Islaamic nation is not ruling according to this treaty, then they should be called out on it.

The Muslim majority nation of Indonesia illegally occupies a nation of Christians and animists. Do you call them out on it?

2.) If they want to change their laws so that Muslims are not allowed to perform obligatory Islaamic things, again, I said Muslims would be required to leave if they are able to. If they want to change their laws to say that Muslims cannot preach the religion, then I will surely point out that they are not ruling according to their own laws. But in the end, if the law does not change, Muslims would just have to leave:

Verily! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves, they (angels) say (to them): "In what (condition) were you?" They reply: "We were weak and oppressed on earth." They (angels) say: "Was not the earth of Allāh spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?" Such men will find their abode in Hell - What an evil destination! (An-Nisa 4:97)

So why then, instead of leaving the West and encouraging other Muslims to do so, are you advocating for religious freedom for Muslims?

It's under Muslim leadership. If the Christians want to exert their influence, then they should take over (though it's not likely to happen).

It wasn't under Muslim leadership before it was formed. Were the Christians and Hindus and Sikhs and Jews in that area consulted whether they wanted to live under a Muslim majority government?

And I think it is extremely hypocritical when some Christians expect people to condemn their religion for certain rules when those rules pale in comparison to God allegedly ordering people to kill innocent babies and yet that commandment is not condemned.

I am not saying you should condemn Islam (although I do hope you realize it is not from God), I am saying you should condemn religious restrictions against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries, if you condemn religious restrictions against Muslims in non-Muslim majority countries.

Why would you expect me to condemn God for ordering babies to be killed, when, according to your religion, one of His servants killed a small boy?

 

[WoodrowX2]

Salaam Alaikum.

Were there no people living in Saudi Arabia before the Saud family bought the land there? Were these people informed that the land they lived on is private property? Did they give their consent to this? Did the Shia Muslims living in Saudi Arabia give their consent?

Also, are you aware that the Saudi family is involved in supporting Muslim prosyletization? If they do not allow non-Muslims to express their religion in their land, what right do they have to try to spread Islam in non-Muslim lands?

From a historical view the al-Saud Family conquered the Arabian Peninsula in several wars.

I won't say they had any outside help but shortly after they conqured the various kingdoms and sheikdoms they formed Aramco (Arab American oil co.) leased every bit of oil producing regions to the then expanding big 7 oil companies and named the country Saudi Arabia.

The next big step was shortly after WW2 was to lease a considerable amount of land to the US for Military Basis. The end result, the world's richest family.

A more in depth history can be found HERE

 

[TG123]

From a historical view the al-Saud Family conquered the Arabian Peninsula in several wars.

I won't say they had any outside help but shortly after they conqured the various kingdoms and sheikdoms they formed Aramco (Arab American oil co.) leased every bit of oil producing regions to the then expanding big 7 oil companies and named the country Saudi Arabia.

The next big step was shortly after WW2 was to lease a considerable amount of land to the US for Military Basis. The end result, the world's richest family.

A more in depth history can be found HERE

Salaam Alaikum, and thank you for the history lesson. It sounds like the Saud family owns the land because they conquered others in it and subjugated them. Would you say then that it is rightfully their property?

 

[smaneck]

The Muslim majority nation of Indonesia illegally occupies a nation of Christians and animists. Do you call them out on it?

It may be unjust, but illegal? What law does it violate?

It wasn't under Muslim leadership before it was formed. Were the Christians and Hindus and Sikhs and Jews in that area consulted whether they wanted to live under a Muslim majority government?

As you must surely know Pakistan was formed because Muslims didn't want to live under a Hindu majority government. Everyone pretty much voted with their feet. I don't think there were any Jews in Pakistan (they mostly lived on the west coast of India.) As for Hindus and Sikhs, well we all know the bloodshed associated with Partition. Christians were content to live under a Muslim majority government because they were mostly from untouchable castes. Better to be a Christian under Muslim rule than an Untouchable under Hindu rule. But at that time the Muslim majority government was a secular socialist state, just like Israel was originally. But just as was the case in Israel, the fact it was formed around a religious identity meant that there would be a constant pull to define that religion. And given the fact that secularists all over the world tend to have a lower birth rate than the ultra-religious eventually the secularists in both countries start to become out numbered.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

So are you saying that Muslims should dictate how both Islaamic and non-Muslim societies are to behave, or did I misunderstand you?

Muslims dictate Islaamic societies and their laws.

I am also a citizen of a non-Muslim country. There are agreements between the government and its population (including the Muslims). If they go against their own laws, I have a complete right to point that out. Similarly, if a Muslim nation goes against Islaam's laws (including not breaking treaties/covenants during the time they are in effect unless & until the other side breaks it first), then the non-Muslims have a complete right to point that out.

Why is preventing them from changing their laws or coming up with new ones, like Pakistan did?

I don't understand.

The Muslim majority nation of Indonesia illegally occupies a nation of Christians and animists. Do you call them out on it?

I don't have much knowledge about nor do I have an allegiance to Indonesia except that they are my brothers and sisters in faith (which is, really, a pretty big allegiance....but I think you know what I mean). Even if I did have a strong allegiance to them, it would still not exempt them from criticism.

If they are doing something unIslaamic, including oppressing the people they rule over, then they are absolutely to be condemned for those things. If Indonesia is participating in unIslaamic things such as intentionally targeting non-combatant women and children, then this is definitely wrong and they should be chastised and try to correct the wrongs (including paying/giving whatever the Islaamic laws mandate....well, this is theoretical right now since no Muslim country will actually force another Muslim country to act according to Islaam, unfortunately).

So why then, instead of leaving the West and encouraging other Muslims to do so, are you advocating for religious freedom for Muslims?

Quite a few Muslims actually do say that people should be emigrating out of the West.

But right now, American law still clearly says that everyone has the freedom of religion. If this law didn't exist & they didn't allow people to follow Islaam, Muslims wouldn't be here. When they go against this law, then we will speak up against it because they are not following the "agreement"/their own rules. But if they insist on changing it and going against their own laws, the Muslims will leave even though many of us were born and raised here.

It wasn't under Muslim leadership before it was formed. Were the Christians and Hindus and Sikhs and Jews in that area consulted whether they wanted to live under a Muslim majority government?

1.) The Hindus and Muslims reached an agreement that whatever areas were Muslim majority would become part of the Muslim country and whatever areas were Hindu majority would become part of India. And this is largely what happened (with a few exceptions, such as Kashmir which was majority-Muslim but the leadership was non-Muslim & therefore went against the agreement and the wishes of the majority Muslim population and became part of India - this conflict still has not ended today).

2.) If the Christians (or Hindus/Sikhs/Jews....though the Jewish population is miniscule) wish to claim Pakistan and have rules that they want, then maybe they should gather armies and try to conquer it though I would hope that they would not succeed.

I am not saying you should condemn Islam (although I do hope you realize it is not from God), I am saying you should condemn religious restrictions against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries, if you condemn religious restrictions against Muslims in non-Muslim majority countries.

I know it's from God, Alhamdulillah.

One of the rules in Islaam is that non-Muslims cannot preach their religion to Muslims in Islaamic countries. So by asking us to condemn this rule, you're asking us to condemn Islaam's laws.

Why would you expect me to condemn God for ordering babies to be killed, when, according to your religion, one of His servants killed a small boy?

Right now, the issue is why you're expecting Muslims to condemn a commandment of Islaam which you dislike (banning the preaching of other religions in Muslim areas) when you cannot condemn a commandment of Christianity (which was to commit slaughter the inhabitants of entire cities including suckling infants) that Muslims dislike.



Also, I had a question. Do you argue for the legalization of same-sex marriages?

 

[TG123]

Muslims dictate Islaamic societies and their laws.

I am also a citizen of a non-Muslim country. There are agreements between the government and its population (including the Muslims). If they go against their own laws, I have a complete right to point that out. Similarly, if a Muslim nation goes against Islaam's laws (including not breaking treaties/covenants during the time they are in effect unless & until the other side breaks it first), then the non-Muslims have a complete right to point that out.

Do Muslims in Islaamic countries have any say on whether or not they wish to be ruled by Islaam? Especially if they lived in the country before it became Islamic?

I don't understand.

Before Pakistan became Muslim, the area was under a British occupation. Under British occupation, non-Muslims were not banned from prosyletizing. Under Muslim rule, they are.

What would be wrong with a non-Muslim country suddenly denying certain religious freedoms to Muslims? If laws can be changed to restrict non-Muslims, why can't they be changed to restrict Muslims?

I don't have much knowledge about nor do I have an allegiance to Indonesia except that they are my brothers and sisters in faith (which is, really, a pretty big allegiance....but I think you know what I mean). Even if I did have a strong allegiance to them, it would still not exempt them from criticism.

If they are doing something unIslaamic, including oppressing the people they rule over, then they are absolutely to be condemned for those things. If Indonesia is participating in unIslaamic things such as intentionally targeting non-combatant women and children, then this is definitely wrong and they should be chastised and try to correct the wrongs (including paying/giving whatever the Islaamic laws mandate....well, this is theoretical right now since no Muslim country will actually force another Muslim country to act according to Islaam, unfortunately).

As I said before, I encourage you to do some research and learn more about this great and ongoing injustice.

BTW out of curiousity, what punishment is fit for a Muslim ruler who commits genocide of non-Muslims? This is what is slowly happening in West Papua.

Quite a few Muslims actually do say that people should be emigrating out of the West.

But right now, American law still clearly says that everyone has the freedom of religion. If this law didn't exist & they didn't allow people to follow Islaam, Muslims wouldn't be here. When they go against this law, then we will speak up against it because they are not following the "agreement"/their own rules. But if they insist on changing it and going against their own laws, the Muslims will leave even though many of us were born and raised here.

Why would you speak out against the Americans following their own rules? What does it concern you if they change them and they restrict Muslims?

This is what Christians have had to put up with in Pakistan.

1.) The Hindus and Muslims reached an agreement that whatever areas were Muslim majority would become part of the Muslim country and whatever areas were Hindu majority would become part of India. And this is largely what happened (with a few exceptions, such as Kashmir which was majority-Muslim but the leadership was non-Muslim & therefore went against the agreement and the wishes of the majority Muslim population and became part of India - this conflict still has not ended today).

2.) If the Christians (or Hindus/Sikhs/Jews....though the Jewish population is miniscule) wish to claim Pakistan and have rules that they want, then maybe they should gather armies and try to conquer it though I would hope that they would not succeed.

So in this situation, while the 2 biggest religions got their way, everyone else was repressed. Does this sound like justice to you?

Would you support such a thing happening to Muslims?

I know it's from God, Alhamdulillah.

We obviously disagree.

One of the rules in Islaam is that non-Muslims cannot preach their religion to Muslims in Islaamic countries. So by asking us to condemn this rule, you're asking us to condemn Islaam's laws.

Then Islaam is a hypocritical religion, for allowing its adherents to preach their faith in non-Muslim lands (and according to Sunrise, even allowing non-Muslims to be attacked if they do not allow Islaam to be preached) while banning non-Muslims from doing this.

Right now, the issue is why you're expecting Muslims to condemn a commandment of Islaam which you dislike (banning the preaching of other religions in Muslim areas) when you cannot condemn a commandment of Christianity (which was to commit slaughter the inhabitants of entire cities including suckling infants) that Muslims dislike.

The most obvious reason would be that Christians are not allowed to follow this commandment anymore, so it is completely irrelevant to Muslims and other non-believers. The same is not true with banning preaching in Muslim countries.

Also, I had a question. Do you argue for the legalization of same-sex marriages?

No, I do not. Why do you ask?

Question for you- can you please provide your input in the thread below?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7794039/

Smaneck is a very intelligent debater, but I was also hoping to hear from Muslims and to debate with you (Muslims) on this topic and hear what you think.

Thanks.

 

[smaneck]

1.) The Hindus and Muslims reached an agreement that whatever areas were Muslim majority would become part of the Muslim country and whatever areas were Hindu majority would become part of India. And this is largely what happened (with a few exceptions, such as Kashmir which was majority-Muslim but the leadership was non-Muslim & therefore went against the agreement and the wishes of the majority Muslim population and became part of India - this conflict still has not ended today).

I'm not sure what you are saying here but if you are suggesting that India agreed that Kashmir would be part of Pakistan, that would be incorrect. Nor was Partition ever a Hindu idea. Jinnah took 'direct action' meaning he persuaded Muslims to rise up and make it happen. As for Kashmir, Nehru was a Kashmiri Brahman who was now about to give up his homeland.
Now having been to Kashmir myself I can attest that the majority of people don't see themselves as Indians and don't want to be a part of India. But they don't want to be part of Pakistan either. Aside from religion, Indians and Pakistanis are pretty much alike. The same cannot be said about Kashmiris. Their culture is very distinct.

Right now, the issue is why you're expecting Muslims to condemn a commandment of Islaam which you dislike (banning the preaching of other religions in Muslim areas) when you cannot condemn a commandment of Christianity (which was to commit slaughter the inhabitants of entire cities including suckling infants) that Muslims dislike.

No Christian would consider practicing the commandment you mention today. I don't think Christian much cares whether you condemn the commandment in question. The issue is whether or not it is appropriate to practice it today. Every Christian I know would say that whatever God may have commanded 2700 years ago, it would be wrong to do that today.

Also, I had a question. Do you argue for the legalization of same-sex marriages?

I know this question is for TG, but homosexual relations are not permitted in my religion either. Still I do not support prohibiting it as a matter of law because I don't think Baha'is should impose their personal religious beliefs on others. In other words, I believe in the First Amendment. But TG may be more conservative on this issue.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Do Muslims in Islaamic countries have any say on whether or not they wish to be ruled by Islaam? Especially if they lived in the country before it became Islamic?

Muslims have no right to reject the laws of God if they are in the leadership position and are practically able to implement them. Otherwise that takes one out of the fold of Islaam.

Before Pakistan became Muslim, the area was under a British occupation. Under British occupation, non-Muslims were not banned from prosyletizing. Under Muslim rule, they are.

Right, because it is now under Muslim rule. Whichever group gets control of the land decides the way the country is run. The population can either agree or decide to fight against the new leadership (with arms, with the pen, etc.).

What would be wrong with a non-Muslim country suddenly denying certain religious freedoms to Muslims? If laws can be changed to restrict non-Muslims, why can't they be changed to restrict Muslims?

They can, and then the Muslims will leave. I've repeated that several times.

BTW out of curiousity, what punishment is fit for a Muslim ruler who commits genocide of non-Muslims? This is what is slowly happening in West Papua.

I don't know. Usually Muslim leaders cannot be rebelled against by the Muslim population in an Islaamic state unless that leader is no longer Muslim. According to some scholars, though, it is enough for the leader to be an open/rebellious/defiant sinner. As for the punishment for intentionally targeting those non-Muslims who are supposed to be protected, there are two opinions. The majority opinion seems to be that he has to pay blood-money to the victim's family & offer an expiation for the sin. Another opinion is that the Muslim can be killed if the victim's family so chooses. This is the worldly punishment, I do not know what the punishment in the Hereafter would be (though that leader should definitely fear it because of various narrations including one of fearing the prayers of the oppressed)

Why would you speak out against the Americans following their own rules? What does it concern you if they change them and they restrict Muslims?

This is what Christians have had to put up with in Pakistan.

I would speak out against it & it concerns me because I am a citizen of this country and I am under the impression that I have freedom of religion guaranteed by the law.

If they change the constitution, well, Muslims would just tell them that they should not say that they are first amendment supporters and would leave the country to go to a country that would allow them to practice Islaam.

So in this situation, while the 2 biggest religions got their way, everyone else was repressed. Does this sound like justice to you?

Would you support such a thing happening to Muslims?

Sikhs got a say, too, I believe....at least in some regions.

Anyways, they form the bulk of the population of the countries. And this is how it usually works in most countries (that whoever is the majority gets to make the laws - unless they didn't win the land if/when they fought for it).

Then Islaam is a hypocritical religion, for allowing its adherents to preach their faith in non-Muslim lands (and according to Sunrise, even allowing non-Muslims to be attacked if they do not allow Islaam to be preached) while banning non-Muslims from doing this.

So is Christianity a hypocritical religion for allowing (no, commanding) its adherents to the oppression & annihilation of entire cities, including helpless infants, but using the oppression they had to endure as an excuse to kill even babies who had nothing to do with that oppression?

The most obvious reason would be that Christians are not allowed to follow this commandment anymore, so it is completely irrelevant to Muslims and other non-believers. The same is not true with banning preaching in Muslim countries.

It's completely relevant to the discussion. You cannot condemn a terrible act of violence commanded by your religion because you believe it was an order from God but you want us to condemn a law that Islaam teaches.

If it's an order from God, you wouldn't condemn it even though it seems like a great act of injustice. Likewise, Muslims don't condemn this order from God (though we don't see it as injustice).

No, I do not. Why do you ask?

Would you be against making marriages between men and women illegal (or to use another word, de-legalizing them)?

Question for you- can you please provide your input in the thread below?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7794039/

Smaneck is a very intelligent debater, but I was also hoping to hear from Muslims and to debate with you (Muslims) on this topic and hear what you think.

Thanks.

Maybe later if I feel like it. Right now I don't, no offense.

 

[smaneck]

BTW out of curiousity, what punishment is fit for a Muslim ruler who commits genocide of non-Muslims? This is what is slowly happening in West Papua.

That's a strong charge, TG. What evidence do you have for this? Killing some protesters does not constitute genocide. You would need to show they are out to wipe out all the Aborigines. Can you do that?

 

[WoodrowX2]

Salaam Alaikum, and thank you for the history lesson. It sounds like the Saud family owns the land because they conquered others in it and subjugated them. Would you say then that it is rightfully their property?

Just my own opinion based only on what I have read in History. In accordance with what I see as the History of the region one family stole the land. It will be upon them to give proof to Allaah(swt) it was justified and not theft.

The World community seems to have legalized the action by recognizing the KSA as a sovereign Nation and by recognizing the al-Saud family as the legal Monarchs.

A bit of a tidbit At one time the al-Saud Family was exiled from the Arabian Peninsula for allowing non-Muslims onto the peninsula. But soon after they regained control and ever since non-Muslims have been allowed on the peninsula. Some former US Military and former oil field workers have returned to Saudi to retire there.

 

[TG123]

Muslims have no right to reject the laws of God if they are in the leadership position and are practically able to implement them. Otherwise that takes one out of the fold of Islaam.

I apologize, I meant to write do non-Muslims in Islaamic countries have any say on whether or not they wish to be ruled by Islaam?

Right, because it is now under Muslim rule. Whichever group gets control of the land decides the way the country is run. The population can either agree or decide to fight against the new leadership (with arms, with the pen, etc.).

What would your reaction be if Pakistani Christians and Sikhs and the few Jews in that country began fighting its government for their religious freedoms to be respected?

They can, and then the Muslims will leave. I've repeated that several times.

Then why oppose policies that restrict Muslim religious freedoms in Europe? If rightwing bigots are passing new laws that restrict Muslims, why do you oppose them instead of calling for an emigration? I oppose such restrictions on religious freedom, but unlike you I oppose them regardless of who is perpetrating them.

I don't know. Usually Muslim leaders cannot be rebelled against by the Muslim population in an Islaamic state unless that leader is no longer Muslim. According to some scholars, though, it is enough for the leader to be an open/rebellious/defiant sinner. As for the punishment for intentionally targeting those non-Muslims who are supposed to be protected, there are two opinions. The majority opinion seems to be that he has to pay blood-money to the victim's family & offer an expiation for the sin. Another opinion is that the Muslim can be killed if the victim's family so chooses. This is the worldly punishment, I do not know what the punishment in the Hereafter would be (though that leader should definitely fear it because of various narrations including one of fearing the prayers of the oppressed)

It sounds like it's pretty ambiguous to me, and that taking arms against a genocidal Muslim ruler should be a last resort. The scholars can't seem to agree whether or not the death penalty should be applied to someone who is murdering innocent non-Muslims?

Is there also this much indecision on the proper course of action that should be taken when non-Muslims are mass murdering Muslims?

I would speak out against it & it concerns me because I am a citizen of this country and I am under the impression that I have freedom of religion guaranteed by the law.

Why would your freedom of religion in a non-Muslim state be important to you? You don't seem to have a problem with non-Muslims being denied it in Muslim states.

If they change the constitution, well, Muslims would just tell them that they should not say that they are first amendment supporters and would leave the country to go to a country that would allow them to practice Islaam.

Why didn't the Muslim world tell this to the French government and have millions of Muslims leave France, instead of protesting the hijab ban?

Sikhs got a say, too, I believe....at least in some regions.

In which regions of Pakistan do Sikhs have any say? In which parts of Pakistan is it illegal to prosyletize Islam to Sikhs? In which parts of Pakistan do people who leave Sikhism to embrace Islam face legal action?

Anyways, they form the bulk of the population of the countries. And this is how it usually works in most countries (that whoever is the majority gets to make the laws - unless they didn't win the land if/when they fought for it).

So if the Christians in the US decided one day to form a Christian state and everyone else, being the minority, had to submit to them, that would be how things work, right? You would have no problems with it?

So is Christianity a hypocritical religion for allowing (no, commanding) its adherents to the oppression & annihilation of entire cities, including helpless infants, but using the oppression they had to endure as an excuse to kill even babies who had nothing to do with that oppression?

What do you mean by "using the oppression they had to endure as an excuse to kill even babies who had nothing to do with that oppression"?

Secondly, how does the genocides that God ordered in the Old Testament have any effect on how Christians are supposed to treat Muslims?

It's completely relevant to the discussion. You cannot condemn a terrible act of violence commanded by your religion because you believe it was an order from God but you want us to condemn a law that Islaam teaches.

The major difference is that the genocides ordered by God were a thing of the past, and Christians who follow the Bible would never do such a thing.

Your religious laws are a thing of the present, and affect the religious freedoms of Christians and other non-Muslims today.

Also, Joshua never complained that non-Israelites were killing Israelite babies. Muslims complain that non-Muslims take away their religious freedoms.

If it's an order from God, you wouldn't condemn it even though it seems like a great act of injustice. Likewise, Muslims don't condemn this order from God (though we don't see it as injustice).
[/quote
OK I see what you are saying here, and I see the reason. I can only then stand by my point, that Islam encourages its followers to act in a hypocritical way towards non-Muslims.

Would you be against making marriages between men and women illegal (or to use another word, de-legalizing them)?

No, I do not thing marriages between men and women should be illegal.

Maybe later if I feel like it. Right now I don't, no offense.

No offence taken. If you do choose to reply, it would be a very interesting discussion, and I hope you do decide to. It is your choice however.

 

[TG123]

That's a strong charge, TG. What evidence do you have for this? Killing some protesters does not constitute genocide. You would need to show they are out to wipe out all the Aborigines. Can you do that?

A lot more than "some protesters" have been murdered in West Papua.

What is happening in West Papua is more or less a replay of what was done to the First Nations peoples in North America. Mass murder and repression accompanied by immigration from the occupiers' country and destruction of the environment the native population relies on to live. The only thing missing are the residential schools.

Papua (Indonesia), Genocide Studies, Yale University

Act Element of the Crime of Genocide

Indonesian military and police forces have
engaged in widespread violence and killings
in West Papua. This paper documents a history
of massacres of the West Papuan people, from
the killing by aerial bombardment of several thousand Papuans in
Jayawijaya in 1977 to the use of napalm and chemical weapons against villagers in 1981 to the massacre of 32 West Papuans in Wamena in October 2000. Indonesian authorities have also been responsible for numerous
extrajudicial killings, including torture killings of detained pris
oners, assassinations of West Papuan political, cultural, and vill
age leaders, and brutal killings of civilian men, women, and
children. This pattern of massacres and killings
falls squarely within the first category of act
identified by the Genocide Convention, “killing members of the group.”
Indonesian military and police force have subjected West Papuans to arbitrary and mass
detention, torture, and other cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment. Detained Papuans have
suffered electric shocks, beatings, pistol whipping, water torture,
cigarette burns, and confinement in steel containers for months on end. Many West Papuans have been
“disappeared” and likely tortured or killed, their family members subjected to psychological
trauma and often severe economic deprivation as a result. Indonesian
soldiers have also committed numerous acts of rape and sexual violence against West Papuan women, frequently in public and sometimes accompanied by mutilation or murder or both. Such acts of rape and
sexual violence, mutilation, torture, cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and
disappearance constitute unequivocal acts of “serious bodily or me
ntal harm to members of the group,” the second category of act
under the Genocide Convention.

Many of these acts have resulted in the deaths of West
Papuans, thus falling within the “killing” category as well.
At the same time, the Indonesian government’s systematic program of resource
exploitation, destruction of Papuan resources and crops, compulsory and often uncompensated
labor, transmigration, and forced relocation has caused pervasive environmental harm to the
West Papuan region, undermined traditional subsistence practices and the social fabric and
governance systems of indigenous communities, and led to widespread disease, malnutrition, and
death among West Papuans. Mining and logging operations, undertaken in support of PT
have caused devastating environmental damage and the sickness or death of thousands of West Papuans. To facilitate mining operations and resettle transmigrants from else where in Indonesia, the government
has intentionally forced West Papuans from their traditional lands to unfamiliar locations, often
leaving them without means of subsistence. The government has consistently re
fused to provide adequate medical care to the West Papuans and has discriminated against them
in the provision of basic health care and reproductive services. Indonesian military forces
have directly attacked West Papuans’ property and crops and have occasionally forced Papuans to work without compensation or below subsistence wages, under threat of arrest.
Many of these acts, individually and collectively, clearly constitute crimes against
humanity under international law. Moreover, by engaging in such acts with the knowledge that
they would result in the destruction of the indigenous people of West Papua, the Indonesian
government likely has “deliberately inflict[ed] conditions of life calculated to bring about [the
West Papuan group’s] destruction in whole or in part,” implicating the third category of act
under Article II of the Genocide Convention.



http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/West_Papua_final_report.pdf

INDONESIA: 'The Neglected Genocide' – a report detailing series of abuses in 1977–1978 in Papua is launched — Asian Human Rights Commission

 

[TG123]

It may be unjust, but illegal? What law does it violate?

What laws are violated by land theft, murder, torture, rape, throwing people out of their homes and moving settlers in? Ask the Palestinians.

As you must surely know Pakistan was formed because Muslims didn't want to live under a Hindu majority government. Everyone pretty much voted with their feet. I don't think there were any Jews in Pakistan (they mostly lived on the west coast of India.) As for Hindus and Sikhs, well we all know the bloodshed associated with Partition. Christians were content to live under a Muslim majority government because they were mostly from untouchable castes. Better to be a Christian under Muslim rule than an Untouchable under Hindu rule. But at that time the Muslim majority government was a secular socialist state, just like Israel was originally. But just as was the case in Israel, the fact it was formed around a religious identity meant that there would be a constant pull to define that religion. And given the fact that secularists all over the world tend to have a lower birth rate than the ultra-religious eventually the secularists in both countries start to become out numbered.

So the Muslim rulers then betrayed the Christians. They initially gave them equal rights under a secular state, then took them away.

 

[WoodrowX2]

What laws are violated by land theft, murder, torture, rape, throwing people out of their homes and moving settlers in? Ask the Palestinians.



So the Muslim rulers then betrayed the Christians. They initially gave them equal rights under a secular state, then took them away.

A little off track, but things like this also happen in Pakistan:

The Orthodox Mission in Pakistan ( Ecumenical Patriarchate)
OCP News Service – 20/12/13
Visit OMP website:
Pakistan: The Orthodox Mission have completed the construction of first ever Church building in Pakistan. It is a great dream come true for the local Orthodox community in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Leadership of Fr John Tanveer
An outstanding priest and a community leader, Fr John Tanveer has toiled continuously to built a church building for the Orthodox Christians in Pakistan. He has provided incredible spiritual and pastoral care to the growing Orthodox faithful in the country.
With the support of the Orthodox Christian Mission Center (OCMC) and contributions of the local Orthodox faithful, Fr John succeeded to built a beautiful Orthodox Temple for serving Divine Liturgy and taking care of various spiritual needs.
OMP

SOURCE

 

[smaneck]

A lot more than "some protesters" have been murdered in West Papua.

What is happening in West Papua is more or less a replay of what was done to the First Nations peoples in North America. Mass murder and repression accompanied by immigration from the occupiers' country and destruction of the environment the native population relies on to live.

I admit, you've presented a strong case.

 

[smaneck]

So the Muslim rulers then betrayed the Christians. They initially gave them equal rights under a secular state, then took them away.

Not intentionally. Pakistan is a state deeply divided against itself. The Muslim urban population tends to be strongly Islamist whereas the countryside tends more towards Sufism and socialism. The party currently in power in Pakistan represents the latter. Unfortunately they don't control the military which remains Islamist.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

In the 21st century I don't think it's appropriate for religions to rule a country or demand their own separate government. That may have been a useful way of doing things in the medieval period but with the coming of the idea of secular democracy and religious liberty such things are a little anachronistic to say the least. People should live together as humans regardless of religion and the state should never favor one religious group over another.

Eventually I hope the idea of nationalism will go the way of theocracy too and be replaced by a more cosmopolitan, universalist, or humanist way of thinking as well. "Races" and ethnic groups don't need their own separatist regimes either. We should be working more in the direction of a world federation where all humans are recognized as equal citizens. As it is now people often separate humans into citizens and non-citizens whose well being and rights tend to be ignored as less important. Nationalism may have been a liberating and cutting edge idea at one point in history but to embrace it in this day and age is to be a reactionary that can't keep up with the times.

We need to evolve and leave the old tribalist mentality behind us. Every person on earth, regardless of ethnicity or religious label (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc..), should be able to say "My race is human, my country is Earth (or the cosmos, multiverse, etc..), and my religion is Love."

 

[WoodrowX2]

It is true that not only Muslim majority countries persecute Christians. It is also true that not only Christian majority countries persecute Muslims.

Most Muslim countries are not as cruel towards Christians as Saudi Arabia and Somalia and Afghanistan, but in how many Muslim countries are Christians allowed to prosyletize?

Muslims are allowed to prosyletize in Canada and other Western countries.

Yes, it is true there are no Islamic nations that will permit the proselytizing of any religion other than Islam.There may be some predominately Muslim non-Islamic nations that will do so. Most predominately Muslim nations are not Islamic.

But in any Islamic nation, it is a crime to try to lead a Muslim away from Islam.

One must understand we believe that if a Muslim leaves Islam, he has sentenced himself to Hell fire. For a Muslim to Commit the sin of "Shirk" he has committed the only unforgivable sin.

As a Muslim is aware of the sin of shirk, he will not be forgiven because of ignorance.

We do not think a Muslim will go to Hell if he leaves Islam, we absolutely know it. To attempt to cause a Muslim to leave Islam is an act worse than murder.

There are no laws preventing a Muslim from leaving Islam as that is the person's own choice to desire Hell over heaven. There is no crime in a person practicing their own religion even if as Muslims we believe it to be wrong. but we do believe it is a horrendous act to attempt to lead a Muslim to hell.

While a person practicing a religion other than Islam may not be condemned to eternal damnation, we do believe that a person who has accepted Islam and leaves, is deliberately choosing hellfire. It is quite horrible to deliberately try to lead another person to Hell.