No new Mosques?

[smaneck]

Yes, it is true there are no Islamic nations that will permit the proselytizing of any religion other than Islam.

In Malaysia other religions can spread their religion as long as they don't proselytize Muslims.

 

[WoodrowX2]

In Malaysia other religions can spread their religion as long as they don't proselytize Muslims.

Just going by memory of the days when I did considerable traveling. It seem that I recall that being True in Turkey, Egypt, Some provinces in Indonesia.

Although I believe in a few Islamic Nations it was illegal for Christians to Proselytize Jews as they are considered to be Monotheistic. I never came across any Baha'i during my travels but I think it could be considered illegal for Non-Muslims to try to convert them in an Islamic nation.

 

[smaneck]

Although I believe in a few Islamic Nations it was illegal for Christians to Proselytize Jews as they are considered to be Monotheistic.

In 19th century Iran the American Presbyterians missionaries were having considerable success converting some Jews to Christianity. The Jewish community appealed to the Shah to put a stop to it. The Shah's response was that if a Jew wanted to become an Armenian, they were free to do so.

I never came across any Baha'i during my travels but I think it could be considered illegal for Non-Muslims to try to convert them in an Islamic nation.

Since we are considered apostates anyhow I'm not sure what difference it would make.

 

[Supreme]

In Malaysia other religions can spread their religion as long as they don't proselytize Muslims.

This is where it seems to me that Islam is a faith on the defensive, and incredibly insecure. To outlaw freedom of religion and conscience is really a rather strange idea in the 21st century, but in Islamic nations, it seems to be widely accepted. I would never prevent a non-Christian leaving their faith in Christ, although it would sadden me. I think Christianity is a much more secure religion than Islam is in that respect.

 

[Zoness]

Plus Christianity isn't given special treatment under the law anymore, that makes all the difference in the world. Other faiths opposing Islam don't have that luxury since its the religious zealots writing the legislation in the first place.

 

[smaneck]

This is where it seems to me that Islam is a faith on the defensive, and incredibly insecure. To outlaw freedom of religion and conscience is really a rather strange idea in the 21st century, but in Islamic nations, it seems to be widely accepted. I would never prevent a non-Christian leaving their faith in Christ, although it would sadden me. I think Christianity is a much more secure religion than Islam is in that respect.

I think what we have to look at here is not so much what makes Muslims so intolerant, but rather how the West became so tolerant in matters of religion. It certainly wasn't the case during the Middle Ages or the Early Modern Period. In my opinion it is partly a result of the 16th and 17th century Wars of Religion where Europe fought itself to exhaustion over religion. The Enlightenment immediately followed the Treaty of Westphalia. The Enlightenment was an explicitly anti-Christian movement that was determined to take religion out of the public sphere. By 'privatizing' it, it now became a matter of personal conscience, a proposition which eventually the church came to largely accept.

Ethical monotheisms are by their nature, intolerant. While this may sound surprising to our ears in the 21st century, historically Islam has been the most tolerant of the monotheistic religions. (I'm not counting the Baha'i Faith because it has never had any political power to abuse.) The question arises then, why can't it become so today? I think the problem lies in the fact that Islam has become so legalistic. It's clerics are neither pastors nor priests, they are lawyers. If you view religion in terms of law and law in terms of something divinely revealed, change can be next to impossible. How many Muslims have we heard say here, "We can't change God's Laws!" Christianity, on the other hand, has always had an antinomian streak in it for which you can thank St. Paul. That has made the legal systems in the West considerably more flexible, even when it comes to issues like gay marriages and abortion.

Where does the Baha'i Faith stand in all this? We too are a religion of laws, although we are not legalistic nor would we say that we are 'saved' by works of the Law. While Law may well be divinely revealed we don't have a static Revelator. Laws are revealed for our benefit and they change in accordance with the needs of the Age. It is for this reason we insist on the principle of Progressive Revelation. This applies not simply from one Dispensation to the next but also within that Dispensation. One of the things Baha'u'llah did was sacralize the democratic process, hence our elected bodies are able to determine the appropriate applications of Baha'u'llah's Laws an determine if new ones are needed.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

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?

They can either fight against the leadership or they can agree to live under the laws the leadership presents.

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?

I would hope that they would fail in seizing control of the country because I would not wish for any Muslim nations to become controlled by non-Muslims.

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.

Well, I don't live in Europe, but I CAN point out that they don't follow their own laws. And I have the right to do so as do the European Muslims. Of course, if that European country says that they know they are going against their own laws unabashedly but they they won't budge, then you will probably see a mass migration if they are able to (or, at the very least, the people they are restricting will become reclusive).

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?

Rebeling against the *Muslim* ruler is definitely a last resort even if he is being oppressive to the Muslim population, but I'm not sure about a genocidal ruler since he will probably be considered a faasiq (open/defiant/rebellious sinner).

The majority opinion is that the death penalty is NOT given to the one who kills a non-Muslim who is supposed to be protected (rather, he has to give blood money to the victim's family & offer an expiation), but it doesn't make it any less of a severe sin. And this is regarding killing individuals, I don't know about the case regarding killing large numbers. That's actually what I'm assuming is an important distinction (and I don't know the ruling regarding that).

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

When non-Muslims are mass murdering Muslims in an Islaamic land land, they have violated the treaty/covenant between them and the government, therefore the government will fight them.

But as I mentioned before, I don't know the ruling for Muslims who commit mass murder.This verse might answer a few questions for you:

The recompense of those who wage war against Allāh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. (Al-Ma'idah 5:33)

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.

Because I stay here for that reason. If that law was not present & they showed no signs of changing it, I'd leave.

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?

Because there was a reasonable expectation for this ruling to be overturned. If it was not, then I do believe many Muslims would have left for another country (or the women would stay in their houses). Plus, I did say that if the non-Muslim population of a Muslim nation does not like the leadership, they can try to fight against it.

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?

They HAD a say, to some extent, about the whole partition thing. If they did not want to stay in Pakistan, they left.

Partition of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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?

I would not be ok with it and I would not want that to happen, but I'd look at the facts and see they are in control and Muslims have two choices: stay & resist or leave.

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"?

2This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.

6Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.

So the Amalekites oppressing the Israelites was not looked upon favorably and yet they are commanded to be oppressive to the Amalekites by wiping them all out, even their infants. They're oppressed by a certain group, therefore they commit genocide (including the slaughter of babies). They didn't spare the Amalekites because they didn't show kindness to the Israelites (unlike the Kenites), therefore kill everyone and don't show kindness to them. Should this not raise eyebrows? Is this not hypocritical?

1 Samuel 15 NIV

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

It has an effect on your argument (about Islaam being hypocritical/Muslims being hypocritical/what oppression is & condemning it).

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.

Yes, but shouldn't the concept be the same? If it's hypocritical now, would it not be hypocritical then? If you're condemning Islaam, should you not condemn the OT verses?

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

This seems a little convenient. Why should we agree with your concept of what was okay back then and what is okay now?

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

Because we expect our governments (i.e. whatever nation we're living in, Muslim or not) to abide by their own laws. In the theoretical Islaamic state, non-Muslims should expect the leadership to abide by Islaam's laws & to abide by the treaty/covenant.

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.

And I wonder if you would say that God encouraged His followers to act in a hypocritical way by slaughtering the Amalekites.

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

Sorry, I should've worded it better. Would you speak out against a law that made marriage between men and women illegal?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

This is where it seems to me that Islam is a faith on the defensive, and incredibly insecure. To outlaw freedom of religion and conscience is really a rather strange idea in the 21st century, but in Islamic nations, it seems to be widely accepted. I would never prevent a non-Christian leaving their faith in Christ, although it would sadden me. I think Christianity is a much more secure religion than Islam is in that respect.

If you call our religion defensive & insecure, what do you call a religion that commanded this:

6If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

12If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,a both its people and its livestock. 16You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17and none of the condemned thingsb are to be found in your hands.

Deuteronomy 13 NIV

 

[smaneck]

If you call our religion defensive & insecure, what do you call a religion that commanded this:

A real problem if they attempted to implement those commandments today.

 

[TG123]

Salaam Alaikum.

They can either fight against the leadership or they can agree to live under the laws the leadership presents.

So are you saying that non-Muslims have the right to launch armed rebellions against Muslim rulers for their religious rights?

I would hope that they would fail in seizing control of the country because I would not wish for any Muslim nations to become controlled by non-Muslims.

But you don't seem to have a problem with non-Muslim nations being controlled by Muslims.

Well, I don't live in Europe, but I CAN point out that they don't follow their own laws. And I have the right to do so as do the European Muslims. Of course, if that European country says that they know they are going against their own laws unabashedly but they they won't budge, then you will probably see a mass migration if they are able to (or, at the very least, the people they are restricting will become reclusive).

Do you feel that non-Muslims have the same right to pressure Muslim nations to respect religious freedoms of non-Muslims as Muslims have the right to pressure non-Muslim nations to respect the religious freedoms of Muslims?

Rebeling against the *Muslim* ruler is definitely a last resort even if he is being oppressive to the Muslim population, but I'm not sure about a genocidal ruler since he will probably be considered a faasiq (open/defiant/rebellious sinner).

The majority opinion is that the death penalty is NOT given to the one who kills a non-Muslim who is supposed to be protected (rather, he has to give blood money to the victim's family & offer an expiation), but it doesn't make it any less of a severe sin. And this is regarding killing individuals, I don't know about the case regarding killing large numbers. That's actually what I'm assuming is an important distinction (and I don't know the ruling regarding that).

When non-Muslims are mass murdering Muslims in an Islaamic land land, they have violated the treaty/covenant between them and the government, therefore the government will fight with them.

But as I mentioned before, I don't know the ruling for Muslims who commit mass murder.This verse might answer a few questions for you:

The recompense of those who wage war against Allāh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. (Al-Ma'idah 5:33)

I thank you for your honesty. By commanding Muslims to fight and kill those who oppress Muslims but not holding the same standard for Muslims who oppress non-Muslims is I think Islam is quite hypocritical. To me, it is no different from how the US sentenced Major Hassan to death but has given merely prison sentences to US soldiers who have killed Iraqis.

It is one of many reasons I would not join your religion, and I would hope that people come out of it. I of course hope that people from all religions come to Jesus, not only Muslims.

Because I stay here for that reason. If that law was not present & they showed no signs of changing it, I'd leave.

For what reason do you stay? Sorry, I don't follow.

Because there was a reasonable expectation for this ruling to be overturned. If it was not, then I do believe many Muslims would have left for another country (or the women would stay in their houses). Plus, I did say that if the population of a Muslim nation does not like the leadership, who says they can't fight back?

What did you mean by saying if the population of a Muslim nation does not like the leadership, they can fight back? How is this about France?

They HAD a say, to some extent, about the whole partition thing. If they did not want to stay in Pakistan, they left. Many Sikhs were killed (though they also killed & raped Muslims).

Partition of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why should the Sikhs have been given a choice to accept Muslim rule over them or leave? Why could not the Muslims have left Pakistan?

I wonder who suffered more bloodshed, Muslims at the hands of Sikhs, or Sikhs at the hands of Muslims.

I would not be ok with it and I would not want that to happen, but I'd look at the facts and see they are in control and Muslims have two choices: stay & fight or leave.

So you would be supportive of Muslims fighting the government of a non-Muslim country in which they reside? I thought that was only allowed in Islaamic lands. Now are you saying that Muslims can fight for their religious rights even in a non-Muslim country, while Muslim countries can deny these rights to non-Muslims in theirs? I mean no offense to you personally, but I see that as a huge double standard.

2This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.

6Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
1 Samuel 15 NIV
So they were punished for being oppressive to the Israelites and yet they are commanded to be oppressive to the Amalekites by wiping them all out, even their infants. They're oppressed by a certain group, therefore they commit genocide (including the slaughter of babies). They didn't spare the Amalekites because they didn't show kindness to the Israelites (unlike the Kenites), therefore kill everyone and don't show kindness to them. Should this not raise eyebrows? Is this not hypocritical?

It would have been if the Israelites, as they were killing Amalekite babies, were telling the Amalekites not to kill theirs.

And again, killing of babies, or anyone for that matter, was allowed at a specific time in history by God. It is not allowed anymore.

It has an effect on your argument (about Islaam being hypocritical/Muslims being hypocritical/what oppression is & condemning it).

See above. As they were waging war against the Amalekites, the Israelites were not demanding that they show their people mercy. As Muslims restrict religious freedoms of non-Muslims in their lands, they demand that non-Muslims respect the religious freedoms of Muslims in theirs.

Yes, but shouldn't the concept be the same? If it's hypocritical now, would it not be hypocritical then? If you're condemning Islaam, should you not condemn the OT verses?

At no time in the OT, did the Israelites demand mercy from the Amalekites.

Isn't that convenient? "It's ok because my religion taught this in the past, not now. Therefore, it's not hypocritical of my religion." Of course, this is hypothetical, but if those laws existed today, would you condemn them (if you believed that God had revealed them now)?

I would not have condemned them, but I also would not have been demanding that my enemies respect the rights of my people while I do not respect the rights of theirs.

Because we expect our governments (i.e. whatever nation we're living in, Muslim or not) to abide by their own laws. In the theoretical Islaamic state, non-Muslims should expect the leadership to abide by Islaam's laws & to abide by the treaty/covenant.

However, laws can change. After Pakistan was formed, the laws in that region towards religious freedoms of non-Muslims changed. Non-Muslim countries have the same right.

Do not get me wrong, I do not support legislation banning Islam or religious freedoms of Muslims. I just think it is extremely hypocritical when Muslims ask for these things from the West, while they support religious restrictions on non-Muslims in their countries.

And I wonder if you would say that God encouraged His followers to act in a hypocritical way by slaughtering the Amalekites.

If He ordered them to demand that the Amalekites show them mercy, the answer would have been yes.

Sorry, I should've worded it better. Would you speak out against a law that made marriage between men and women illegal?

Yes. Would you?

Or, more likely than not, we'll arrive at a standstill (but we'll still continue the conversation for pages upon pages).

LOL probably. It wouldn't make it any less interesting, though.

Anyway, I'll see.

Suit yourself.

Masaah Al Kheer.

 

[TG123]

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.

It is also a terrible sin to walk away from Jesus. Any person who dies not believing in Him (and by that I mean what the Bible states about Him) will go to hell.

Christians have as much right to ban Muslim prosyletization, because according to our belief it will lead people to Hell.

Yet our religion does not tell us to persecute or try to silence your missionaries. We are called to preach the Gospel, and to discuss like Paul did.

We are called to go into the world and preach the Gospel. We are not called to persecute people of other faiths who preach theirs, even though those who die having rejected Jesus will enter Hell.

 

[Supreme]

If you call our religion defensive & insecure, what do you call a religion that commanded this:

6If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

12If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,a both its people and its livestock. 16You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17and none of the condemned thingsb are to be found in your hands.

Deuteronomy 13 NIV

Yup, the Israelites too were very insecure about their religion, and were always scared of outsiders having a more convincing version of truth to turn Israelites away from their religion. I'm just glad Christianity doesn't feel the need to be so insecure. Yeah, some people will turn away from Christ, but it's their loss. We know that the Gospel will always be preached, and that it's wrong to try and force people to believe in it.

 

[WoodrowX2]

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.

Glad you brought that up. You are correct Pakistan is very divided. I would say it teeters on the brink of civil war and has been almost from it's formation.

I see a divided threesome. Those who want to remain an independent nation, those who want to return to being a state of India and those who want to become an Iranian state.

Pakistan is a paradox while being Sunni the people in terms of race and/or language have close ties with Iran. The Urdu spoken in Pakistan is closely tied to Farsi, the language of Iran. The formation of an Iranian State would result in the people being Shi'ite. To be an Iranian state means to be subjected to the Ayatollah

We also have China in the background which would benefit from being able to have an oil pipeline pass through Pakistan to Iran.

I have strong doubts Pakistan can last much longer as a Nation unless it's governing body is strongly supported by either the US or China.

China seems to be getting it's foot in the door.

Pakistan Enters Strategic Alliance with China

This is a very important development in global geopolitics and it has very unfavorable implications for the USA, India and their allies. As you read about this, ask yourself if you heard or read anything about this extremely-important event on what are called “news” TV channels in the USA.​

SOURCE

Pakistan has recently transferred the operational control over the Gwadar port, which was constructed with Beijing's assistance, from Singaporean firm to a Chinese one. While the Gwadar port can't serve as a naval base at this moment, Delhi's military planners must necessarily assume such an option exists for Beijing in the future.
That premise is realistic, since China's stakes in the Indian Ocean are growing rapidly. Meanwhile Chinese naval arms transfers to Pakistan have acquired a new intensity and are creating a basis for interoperability between the two navies.

SOURCE

Just my opinion but I believe a strong alliance would result in an end of all religion in Pakistan. Not just Christianity but also Islam and all religions currently found in Pakistan.

China has often been intolerant of the Muslims in China.

 

[TG123]

If you call our religion defensive & insecure, what do you call a religion that commanded this:

6If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

12If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,a both its people and its livestock. 16You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17and none of the condemned thingsb are to be found in your hands.

Deuteronomy 13 NIV

Probably paranoid and insecure as well. If we want to judge religions on the basis of what they once commanded in the past but don't allow anymore, you would have to say that Islam is a religion that encourages killing kids if it is feared they will grow up be bad.


18:74-85, 80-81

So they set out, until when they met a boy, al-Khidh r killed him. [Moses] said, "Have you killed a pure soul for other than [having killed] a soul? You have certainly done a deplorable thing."
[Al-Khidh r] said, "Did I not tell you that with me you would never be able to have patience?"

And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief.
So we intended that their Lord should substitute for them one better than him in purity and nearer to mercy.

This is why it is good to read the whole text and differentiate between what was allowed in the past by a religion, and what is allowed now.

 

[WoodrowX2]

It is also a terrible sin to walk away from Jesus. Any person who dies not believing in Him (and by that I mean what the Bible states about Him) will go to hell.

Christians have as much right to ban Muslim prosyletization, because according to our belief it will lead people to Hell.

I believe Christians should prohibit the proselytizing of any non-Christian religion in a Christian Nation. This failure to do so is indicating the Christians place more value on the body than on the soul. I see it as a bit of hypocrisy to punish a murderer, yet allow the killing of a soul. It gives the impression that to leave Christianity is not going to result in any punishment. Leading one to believe Christianity is not necessary for salvation.

Yet our religion does not tell us to persecute or try to silence your missionaries. We are called to preach the Gospel, and to discuss like Paul did.

If you find any Islamic Missionaries you are finding Muslims that are not following Islam. We are not to preach to those who do not desire to hear. We are very much limited to how we can spread Islam. Primarily we should lead a life style that makes our neighbors desire to learn more about Islam.

We are called to go into the world and preach the Gospel. We are not called to persecute people of other faiths who preach theirs, even though those who die having rejected Jesus will enter Hell.

However, you will find some Christians who will use any possible means to proselytize in non-Christian nations, even if they have to violate the Nations laws or lie about doing so.

Nearly every Missionary that goes into Islamic Nations claims to be a Tourist and does their best to smuggle in Bibles claiming them to be clothing, school books etc.

Or even use covert operations to illegally get Bibles into Non-Christian Nations as is being done in North Korea.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's the New Testament: Christian group air-drops Bibles over North Korea using 40-foot hydrogen balloons

SOURCE

Does Christianity permit the violating a nations law's to proselytize?

In an Islamic Nation, non-Muslims are to be permitted to practice their faith, but they are not to try to convert Muslims. The non-Muslims are not to be persecuted and their clergy are not to be harmed nor are their houses of worship to be damaged.

I agree that in some predominately Muslim nations Christians are persecuted, their churches destroyed and their ministers killed. But that is not what Islam tells us to do.

 

[smaneck]

Those who want to remain an independent nation, those who want to return to being a state of India and those who want to become an Iranian state.

Woodrow, where did you get the idea that there were those who wanted to join with Iran?

Pakistan is a paradox while being Sunni the people in terms of race and/or language have close ties with Iran. The Urdu spoken in Pakistan is closely tied to Farsi, the language of Iran. The formation of an Iranian State would result in the people being Shi'ite. To be an Iranian state means to be subjected to the Ayatollah

Shi'ites make up a sizable minority in Pakistan but they don't necessarily want to join up with Iran. In fact, they have been major proponents of a secular state. Urdu is more closely related to Hindi than Persian (Farsi). It has some Persian vocabulary but the grammar is the same as Hindustani. They are Indo-Europeans like Iranians but so are Indians.

However, you are correct that Pakistan has always been rather precarious as a nation. It took them eight years to come up with a constitution and it was short lived. They have now gone through three constitutions.

In my opinion Pakistan and Bangladesh should have remained part of India, and let Kashmir become independent.

 

[TG123]

Salaam Alaikum, WoodrowX.

I believe Christians should prohibit the proselytizing of any non-Christian religion in a Christian Nation. This failure to do so is indicating the Christians place more value on the body than on the soul. I see it as a bit of hypocrisy to punish a murderer, yet allow the killing of a soul. It gives the impression that to leave Christianity is not going to result in any punishment. Leading one to believe Christianity is not necessary for salvation.

I respectfully disagree with you.

Jesus never told His disciples to stop non-Christians from sharing their faith with them. When Paul met Greek polytheists, he debated them and actually took some time to learn about their beliefs. At no time did he try to shut them down.

The Christian faith is true, and truth does not need to fear it will lose in a debate. If people walk away from salvation, that is their choice.

I am not willing to disobey God by harming my neighbours, so that people stay close to Him.

If you find any Islamic Missionaries you are finding Muslims that are not following Islam. We are not to preach to those who do not desire to hear. We are very much limited to how we can spread Islam. Primarily we should lead a life style that makes our neighbors desire to learn more about Islam.

I have to admit, I am quite shocked to hear you say that. Would you say that people like Yusuf Estes, Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, Zakir Naik etc are not following Islam?

I agree with you that leading a lifestyle that is consistent with one's faith in God is a better witness sometimes than preaching. When I was in the West Bank, I didn't go around and preach my faith to Muslims and my fellow mostly secular activists, but I wore my cross around my neck as I was involved in documenting abuses and trying to stop Israeli soldiers from harming people, and when I was at the hospital having surgery after my beating my Israeli settlers and announced I forgave them. I had quite a few Palestinian Muslims and fellow activists ask me about my beliefs. Some of the Palestinian Muslims did so while trying to tell me to convert to Islam LOL but I had the chance to share my faith without doing any street preaching. I prayed for oppurtunities and God provided.

However, you will find some Christians who will use any possible means to proselytize in non-Christian nations, even if they have to violate the Nations laws or lie about doing so.

Nearly every Missionary that goes into Islamic Nations claims to be a Tourist and does their best to smuggle in Bibles claiming them to be clothing, school books etc.

Or even use covert operations to illegally get Bibles into Non-Christian Nations as is being done in North Korea.



SOURCE

Does Christianity permit the violating a nations law's to proselytize?

I think that Christianity would allow a nation's laws to be violated to prosyletize. Sharing the Gospel is something that Christians are called to do, along with feeding the hungry, standing up against injustice, praying, other things.

I have to admit that when I was in the West Bank, I broke Israeli laws. I obstructed Israeli soldiers as they were arresting and beating up on Palestinians, and would film them when they were being aggressive towards people even after they told me to stop several times. I can't say that I regret having done so.

I try not to lie, but I have to also admit that at times when I have crossed borders I did not do so honestly. I went to Palestine/Israel to work with CPT and ISM, and I went to Arizona to work with a group (No More Deaths) that was providing water, food and medical aid to illegal migrants crossing and dying in the Sonora Desert. Unlike in Israeli occupied West Bank, our work in Arizona was not illegal. However, it is very unpopular and foreign activists coming to the US to volunteer with the above mentioned group are sometimes turned back and denied entry.

Both times when I was entering Israel and the US, I did say I was coming as a tourist. I made sure to take some time to do tourist stuff in both Israel and Arizona, because I don't like to lie. However, I did hold back information and intentionally mislead.

My purpose going to Israel and Palestine was to expose IDF and settler human rights abuses and do my small part in trying to stop them, and my real purpose in going to Arizona was to help provide water, food and medical aid to Mexican and Central American migrants, as well as document abuses they reported at the hands of the Border Patrol, the Mexican police, and organized criminals who prey on these defenceless and desperate people. However, I made the Customs officials in both countries I was entering believe that I was coming to sleep in hotels, go to the beach, eat, drink, and go sightseeing. I did do all these things, but they made up maybe 5% of the time I spent in both countries.

I don't believe I disobeyed Jesus. I didn't lie, but I didn't reveal everything either. My purpose for going to Palestine/Israel and Arizona was to help people and try to expose and work against injustice, and these are things Jesus tells His followers to do. In the process, I probably broke some laws and was evasive at the airports I traveled through. I can't say I regret doing these things.

I didn't go as a missionary (although whenever I can in my life I do try to share my faith, either in discussions with people or by being a witness by my actions), but I respect missionaries who also don't tell the full purpose of their visit. I do not believe they are doing anything wrong, as long as they don't lie.

I do not respect missionaries who try to pressure poor people into becoming Christian by holding back aid if they don't convert or those who will lie and try to bribe people so they become Christian. They are disobeying Jesus, who said to feed the poor and help the oppressed and the homeless- and did not ever suggest that we are to do so only if they agree to become followers.

I also do not respect missionaries who ally themselves with political groups or nations, like some Baptists who went to Iraq supporting the US invasion of that country. They are also not following Jesus but nationalism.

In an Islamic Nation, non-Muslims are to be permitted to practice their faith, but they are not to try to convert Muslims. The non-Muslims are not to be persecuted and their clergy are not to be harmed nor are their houses of worship to be damaged.

I agree that in some predominately Muslim nations Christians are persecuted, their churches destroyed and their ministers killed. But that is not what Islam tells us to do.

I hear what you are saying, and I am glad you recognize that persecution does happen in some Muslim countries and you are against that.

I still think that it is wrong Muslim countries don't allow prosyletization, but I have to say I respect you for not using double standards.

You don't allow Christians to preach Christianity in Muslim countries, but don't think Muslims should be allowed to preach Islam in Christian majority countries.

You aren't a hypocrite, and that means a lot to me. It is something I respect.

I disagree with you on the issue of prosyletization, but have respect for you.

Take care and have a good evening.

PS I know I sound like a broken record but if you have some time I would love to discuss the thread below with you and have you answer and discuss the questions.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7794039/

Allahma3k. His Love endures forever.

 

[smaneck]

Probably paranoid and insecure as well. If we want to judge religions on the basis of what they once commanded in the past but don't allow anymore, you would have to say that Islam is a religion that encourages killing kids if it is feared they will grow up be bad.

Once again, TG. You missed the point of that whole story. You can't just pick out the bit about killing the kid and have it make any sense. This is very different than a divine command supposedly given to a historical Israel to commit genocide.

As I said before, Khidr is not a historical personage.

 

[TG123]

Once again, TG. You missed the point of that whole story. You can't just pick out the bit about killing the kid and have it make any sense. This is very different than a divine command supposedly given to a historical Israel to commit genocide.

As I said before, Khidr is not a historical personage.

There are some differences, there are some similarities. Khidr killed the child for a different reason, but the fact is he did kill him. God in the Bible commanded genocide, God in the Quran allowed child murder.

I have to see any evidence from the hadiths or Quran that Khidr was not a historical person. I read tafsirs Al Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Qathir of these verses, and see nothing that suggests that the Quran teaches he was not a historical personage and that the whole story is just a parable, if that is what you are trying to say.

 

[TG123]

I admit, you've presented a strong case.

Thank you. I hope you join me in condemning Indonesia's genocide in West Papua and encouraging people to peacefully resist it as others resist the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.