No new Mosques?

[smaneck]

Thinking back and scratching my head. I know Francis of Assisi was held in High esteem by the Muslims and did engage in debates with Islamic Scholars. It is probable some Muslims converted then, but I don't recall reading that Francis was harmed by any Muslims.

In Spain monks were usually allowed to preach openly except when their preaching included insulting the Prophet. That was likely to get them killed. Some monks would deliberately do this right outside the mosques because they were seeking martyrdom.

I must say, I can understand Muslim sentiments in this regard. You can insult my religion or even my God, but when I see a Manifestation of God being degraded and insulted I tend to go ballistic.

But of course, I don't kill them or even beat them up.

 

[light upon light]

I'm not saying Protestantism per se, more just the process that Christianity went through during the time period of the Reformation.

 

[smaneck]

I'm not saying Protestantism per se, more just the process that Christianity went through during the time period of the Reformation.

Not so much Christianity but Europeans. Protestantism was not known for its tolerance anymore than Catholicism, but the bloody wars of religion which occurred in the 16th and 17th century persuaded Europeans that maybe they shouldn't fight over religion. Hence the Enlightenment.

 

[TG123]

Wa Alaikum

Peace be unto you in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We do not take away the right for others to fight (but those who fight should also expect that they might not live).

If they want to fight, they can go ahead, though I'd hope they would fail in seizing the Muslim land.

Do you look at things the same way when Muslims are fighting for their rights?

What non-Muslim nations are being controlled by Muslims? Muslim nations have a hard time being controlled by religious Muslims as it is since "progressive" or secularist Muslims (especially their armies) and non-Muslims are generally both against it. Non-Muslim nations generally don't care about who is a "progressive" Muslim and who is a traditional Muslim - Muslims will not be allowed to become the leader of the Western non-Muslim nations. If you recall, Obama was falsely granted the honor of being a Muslim even though it is clear that he identifies himself as a Christian and is definitely not considered our brother in faith. But they were using that as an accusation to deter people from voting for him.

What non-Muslim nations are being controlled by Muslims? Have you taken up my challenge and done some reading on West Papua?

LOL yeah I remember when Obama was accused of being a Muslim by some right-wingers. He is neither a Christian or Muslim, in my opinion. He is a killer.

I feel that non-Muslims have the right to ask the authorities to abide by their own laws just as Muslims have the same right, and this includes abiding by the treaty that the Islaamic state and the non-Muslims would have agreed upon.

OK I see what you are saying. The West is a bad example, since it offers (or claims to offer) religious freedom to everyone, something that Muslim states by your definition do not offer. Let's look at a country where both Christians and Muslims are persecuted- China.

China's policy on religions is that they are tolerated, but they must ally themselves with the Chinese government. Chinese Muslims, particularly Uyghurs, have not been happy with the restrictions imposed on them, and they have been persecuted severely.

Should Muslims in China ask the authorities to abide by their own laws, ie Muslims in China who ally themselves with the Communist Party are not to be persecuted? When the Uighurs fought the Chinese army and police in 2009, the patriotic Islamic Association of China condemned them.

Should Chinese Muslims join the Islamic Association of China, which actually has a committee established to ensure that Muslim scriptures are interpreted in a way to promote the Communist Party?
Freedom of religion in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What about the 3,000 Muslims living in North Korea, whose government is officially atheist? Should they ask it to follow its own laws that make all religion illegal?
Islam by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1.) Well, again, I'm not sure about the oppression of non-Muslims. What I mentioned is just the general ruling (at least, the majority opinion of scholars) of an individual killing another individual. It was not regarding oppression & mass murder. And I certainly don't know about how the ruling would be different for the leader of an Islaamic state that has a treaty (based on Islaam) with its non-Muslim population. 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) asked a non-Muslim Egyptian to beat him because the Egyptian suffered an act of injustice under the rule of 'Umar (the Egyptian declined, but he did whip the one who directly harmed him).

Interesting, but it still seems to me that non-Muslims states who kill Muslims are to be attacked, but that Muslim states who kill non-Muslims are not.

2.) You skipped the verse I pasted (of the one making mischief in the land). Specifically, I was referring to the Muslims who make mischief in Muslim land. I don't know how that factors into this, though.

I apologize for not commenting on it. However, it seems there is no evidence that to kill non-Muslim warrants war to be declared on a Muslim state. Of course, it is not the same for non-Muslims who kill Muslims, is it?

3.) While the punishment might not be the same, the sin is still grave:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "Whoever killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims, shall not smell the scent of Paradise though its scent is perceived from a distance of forty years." [Saheeh al-Bukhaari]

I am not denying that. However, the fact remains that Muslim states are not to be punished for invading and killing innocent non-Muslims; unlike non-Muslim states that do the same thing to Muslims.

Feeling's mutual about your religion.

I am truly shocked.

Seriously though, I do respect you and I do respect many aspects of your religion. I do hope you come to God one day and get to know Him for who He really is.

That the laws guarantee me the right to practice my religion.

Fair enough. I still think it is a bit hypocritical of people who enjoy religious freedoms in some countries and demand that their rights be respected, but defend it when countries that share their religion deny others these same rights.

Kind of like some Americans who demand that other countries not threaten them or bomb them, but are fine with their nation threatening and bombing the nations of others.

Let's not use the West as an example, I admit it is not a good one.

What would be your advice for Chinese Muslims who are resisting the Communist Party? Should their options be either join a puppet religious organization or emigrate, or do they have the right to challenge their rulers and ask for their religious freedoms?

Because you're trying to compare the Muslim demand in non-Muslim countries to the non-Muslim demand in Muslim countries.

Fair enough. So you are saying that Pakistani Christians have just as much right to take up arms against repressions of their religious freedoms as Western Muslims would if they were denied by law, correct?

The Muslims did, indeed, leave India to go to Pakistan (and many were killed). And the Hindus (and Sikhs) who didn't want to stay in Pakistan went to India to go to the Hindu-majority country. That's just how it was.

You ignore that many Sikhs were persecuted by both Muslims and Hindus.

God knows best.

Fair enough.

1.) I did say that non-Muslims can fight against the Muslim government if they don't want to live under their leadership. Perhaps you did not read that before.

2.) I said they have two options, I did not say I would rather they do one over the other.

Fair enough, thank you for clarifying. So according to you, non-Muslims have the right to fight Muslims for their religious freedoms and Muslims have the right to fight non-Muslims for their religious freedoms.

In other words, if a Pakistani Christian group began an armed struggle against the Pakistani government tomorrow, seeking to carve out their own state, you would state that it is their right to do so, correct?

God willing such a thing would not happen. Jesus does not allow His followers to use violence.

But the reason given in the Bible shows that the way the Israelites were oppressed was looked upon unfavorably. And yet the commandment to do the same (actually....to do worse, since the Amalekites didn't wipe out all of the Israelites) was supposedly given. This is hypocritical of your religion, if not the Israelites.

True, but the Israelites were not demanding mercy from the Amalekites at any point. Muslims who have your viewpoint demand that their religious freedoms be respected in non-Muslim countries, but support the religious freedoms of non-Muslims being suppressed in Muslim majority countries.

And again, the principle is still the same. If it is hypocritical now, then it is hypocritical then. WHy should we agree to your concept of what was ok back then and what is ok now?

Again, the Israelites were not hypocritically demanding that the Amalekites show them mercy as they were slaughtering them.

Why should you agree to my concept of what was OK back then and what is OK now? A good reason would be that your religion teaches the same thing.

Killing a child would be a violation of Sharia. Yet Khidr did it, and God was OK with it. You obviously do believe that there were some cases where God allowed His followers to do things in the past that He does not allow them to do now.

See above also.

OK.

You seem to be missing my point. We demand that the countries rule by their own laws, regardless of the government being Muslim/non-Muslim. Who says that non-Muslims of Islaamic nations cannot demand that these Islaamic nations abide by their own laws? Certainly not me; I've said just the opposite repeatedly.

True, you did. Let's focus on the situations of Muslims in China and North Korea. Should they demand that these governments abide by their own laws on religion?

Yes, because it was under a new leadership. If the population doesn't like it, they can either stay & resist or leave.

So if the far right takes control in Europe or the US, it would be valid of them to make new laws that restricted Islam, correct?

You seem to give your religion excuses even though it is clearly a hypocritical act.

How is it hypocritical?

Isn't that a case of supporting one case of oppression and yet not the another?

How would not making marriage between men and women illegal be supporting one case of oppression and not the other?

To answer your question, probably.

Glad to hear. So why would it be oppression if I did it?

 

[smaneck]

Killing a child would be a violation of Sharia. Yet Khidr did it, and God was OK with it.

TG, I wish you would read this story in its entirety so as to get over this notion that it about God being okay with killing a child. Is that you need to have something you can consider even remotely comparable to the genocide commanded in the Tanakh? I implore you, at least *try* and read this story with a little spiritual discernment.

This story is making the same point as Seals and Crofts *Wayland the Rabbit* song (which incidentally I had played at my father's funeral)

Oh my Wayland, there's deer in the forests
And rivers are flowing just for you
Oh my father, look down through the mountains and valleys
The grain's in the silo, all for you

One fine morning, as dad was walking
Just to see what he could see
He spied, a little white rabbit
He was frozen as solid as he could be

And dad cried, as he knelt down beside him
He asked God, "How could you be so cruel?"
And his heart broke, for the little white rabbit
"But you see that the owl, would never have been so gentle
And God is so kind"

I love Wayland 'cause he's strong
And I love him 'cause he's weak
And the rabbit is running within him

Oh my Wayland, the children are waiting
And berries are ripe down below the hill
Oh, my father, the shadows of nighttime can't touch you
Immortal go quickly, be thankful the water is cool, drink your fill

Today as I walked 'long beside him
I said, "Dad why do you look so sad?"
He turned as he stood by the doorway
He said, "Things are not like they used to be"

I smiled, as if I could teach him
I said "Dad, it's mercy in disguise"
"Once you told of a little white rabbit
And you said that the owl would never have been so gentle
And God is so kind"

And I love you 'cause you're strong
And I love you 'cause you're weak
And the rabbit is running within me
Seals & Crofts - Wayland The Rabbit - YouTube

 

[kenzo0]

what Madhab requires the Killing of an apostate?

were there any Madhab when ayah in the Quran were reveal to your prophet?

I do not see were Aceh has actual Shariah in accordance with a legitimate madhab

The purpose of Sharia is not to punish but to discourage a person from committing a crime.

yeah, the theft who had mutilated would discourage to steal again, and make a leaving as a normal human as well.

Under Shariah Murder is not a Hadd crime. It is a responsibility of Civil law.

Had crime - definition of Had crime by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

If that is true. I have sympathy for you and pray that you will find Jesus(as).

thank you for your sympathy,
but sympathy from my Jesus Christ is generous enough

If you mean Surat al-Qiyamah. Yes, multiple times. Do you not believe in the Resurrection?

partly I didn't talk about the surah, but the whole believe about qiyamah in Islam view.

I try to read a Juz every day. In that way I read the entire Qur'an at least once a Month. But outside of reading I d try to do an intense study of at least one Surah each month.

hmm, ok.

I had to close my Masjid as I could no longer afford to pay the utility bills for it. It cost me very much money to build. In the USA it is difficult to find any one to help with Masjid expenses.

same thing goes to any other religion building

Out of curiosity when you were a Muslimah what Madhab did you follow?

I don't think its important.
the only one I can tell you is, I was sunni.

 

[kenzo0]

Not so. Jesus may not have issued such a command but the Church most certainly did! And Christianity is the Church.

there you know how to differentiate I guess..
or you are typically judge that Durian is not good fruit only because of its skin

 

[smaneck]

yeah, the theft who had mutilated would discourage to steal again, and make a leaving as a normal human as well.

Normally this penalty only applies to what we would call 'three-time losers', i.e. repeat offenders. And it doesn't apply at all if food is stolen. In my country three-time losers are often locked up for life. I'll bet a lot of them would give up their hand to get out.

same thing goes to any other religion building

It is harder for masjids because they can't take out a mortgage.

 

[WoodrowX2]

It is harder for masjids because they can't take out a mortgage.

Even harder in my case cause as the Imam I was paying for the whole thing. We did not have any type of Islamic Center. Just me trying to make a Mosque for the Rural Muslims.

 

[WoodrowX2]

there you know how to differentiate I guess..
or you are typically judge that Durian is not good fruit only because of its skin

Durian

It took me years before I could even dare taste one. The Smell of them is quite unpalatable to most people that do not live in Indonesia or Malaysia.

It takes a long time to get used to their smell. But once you get used to it, they are quite good. I got to like them, but they are hard to find in North Dakota.

 

[smaneck]

Durian

I had to google it.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Peace be unto you in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I can't say "wa alaikum" to this because I'd be promoting shirk (polytheism). And I don't believe I will get any peace from a human that is not in control of anything.

Do you look at things the same way when Muslims are fighting for their rights?

That they have the right to fight against who they see as oppressors? Certainly.

What non-Muslim nations are being controlled by Muslims? Have you taken up my challenge and done some reading on West Papua?

Oh, well I take Indonesia as a Muslim country (and West Papua is part of Indonesia).

I listened to an NPR segment on West Papua and I did some research on the country itself. That's about it for now.

LOL yeah I remember when Obama was accused of being a Muslim by some right-wingers. He is neither a Christian or Muslim, in my opinion. He is a killer.

A killer can be a Christian.

OK I see what you are saying. The West is a bad example, since it offers (or claims to offer) religious freedom to everyone, something that Muslim states by your definition do not offer. Let's look at a country where both Christians and Muslims are persecuted- China.

Actually, Islaam does offer religious freedom, just not to the extent that you want it. It offers religious freedom so long as it does not go against not go against the laws (which would be based on the Qur'aan & sunnah). And this amount of freedom has actually made Western historians say that the non-Muslims under the protection of these Islaamic countries enjoyed a significant amount of freedom not found in areas ruled by other religions (particularly Christianity).

Persecuted Christians would actually prefer to live under Muslim rule than Christian rule. Same with the Jews & there are records of Jews encouraging other Jews in Christian nations to move to the Muslim nations. And at this time, the Muslim nations had considerable Islaamic influence.

China's policy on religions is that they are tolerated, but they must ally themselves with the Chinese government. Chinese Muslims, particularly Uyghurs, have not been happy with the restrictions imposed on them, and they have been persecuted severely.

Should Muslims in China ask the authorities to abide by their own laws, ie Muslims in China who ally themselves with the Communist Party are not to be persecuted? When the Uighurs fought the Chinese army and police in 2009, the patriotic Islamic Association of China condemned them.

Should Chinese Muslims join the Islamic Association of China, which actually has a committee established to ensure that Muslim scriptures are interpreted in a way to promote the Communist Party?

What about the 3,000 Muslims living in North Korea, whose government is officially atheist? Should they ask it to follow its own laws that make all religion illegal?

They can fight back. And I believe that they are resisting in China. I virtually know nothing about the Muslims of North Korea so I can't really comment.

Interesting, but it still seems to me that non-Muslims states who kill Muslims are to be attacked, but that Muslim states who kill non-Muslims are not.

But Muslim nations are not determining the laws for non-Muslim nations? If they want to attack the theoretical Islaamic nation, obviously the Islaamic nation won't want them to, but I doubt that the non-Muslim nation will abide by the wishes of the Islaamic nation.

I apologize for not commenting on it. However, it seems there is no evidence that to kill non-Muslim warrants war to be declared on a Muslim state. Of course, it is not the same for non-Muslims who kill Muslims, is it?

I'm confused. Are we talking about other nations attacking the offending Muslim nation? Or the Muslim population of the Islaamic country attacking its own government?

I am not denying that. However, the fact remains that Muslim states are not to be punished for invading and killing innocent non-Muslims; unlike non-Muslim states that do the same thing to Muslims.

Yeah, there is no punishment for conquering lands. As for intentionally targeting non-combatant non-Muslims during war, I'm not sure what is supposed to happen in terms of punishments though I DO know the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) strongly disapproved when he found a woman killed during a battle (which was when he told us that non-combatant women and children are to be avoided if possible). As for intentionally targeting non-combatant non-Muslims who are supposed to be protected, then this is a sin, but again, I don't know what the punishment is for a person who does this. This is completely outside the little level of knowledge that I do have about Islaam (which is very little compared to what I should have).

I am truly shocked.

Seriously though, I do respect you and I do respect many aspects of your religion. I do hope you come to God one day and get to know Him for who He really is.

May Allaah guide us all to the Straight Path.

Let's not use the West as an example, I admit it is not a good one.

What would be your advice for Chinese Muslims who are resisting the Communist Party? Should their options be either join a puppet religious organization or emigrate, or do they have the right to challenge their rulers and ask for their religious freedoms?

They should keep resisting or emigrate if possible. I did say that if a portion of the population does not like the laws & does not want to agree to them, they have the right to resist.

Fair enough. So you are saying that Pakistani Christians have just as much right to take up arms against repressions of their religious freedoms as Western Muslims would if they were denied by law, correct?

I'm saying that I'm not taking away their ability to fight. I would not want them to succeed in overtaking the country, though.

You ignore that many Sikhs were persecuted by both Muslims and Hindus.

Probably, but I know of 3rd hand accounts of entire families being killed by Sikhs. And yet I have met people who generally ignore that and assume that Sikhs are more peaceful than Muslims.

Fair enough, thank you for clarifying. So according to you, non-Muslims have the right to fight Muslims for their religious freedoms and Muslims have the right to fight non-Muslims for their religious freedoms.

In other words, if a Pakistani Christian group began an armed struggle against the Pakistani government tomorrow, seeking to carve out their own state, you would state that it is their right to do so, correct?

God willing such a thing would not happen. Jesus does not allow His followers to use violence.

You're welcome & answered above.

True, but the Israelites were not demanding mercy from the Amalekites at any point. Muslims who have your viewpoint demand that their religious freedoms be respected in non-Muslim countries, but support the religious freedoms of non-Muslims being suppressed in Muslim majority countries.

Again, the Israelites were not hypocritically demanding that the Amalekites show them mercy as they were slaughtering them.

1.) We demand that nations rule by their own laws.

2.) It's still hypocritical of your religion even if you do not want to say that it's hypocritical of the Israelites.

Why should you agree to my concept of what was OK back then and what is OK now? A good reason would be that your religion teaches the same thing.

I'm asking why *we* should conform to Christianity's rules in our nations. That's my point.

Killing a child would be a violation of Sharia. Yet Khidr did it, and God was OK with it. You obviously do believe that there were some cases where God allowed His followers to do things in the past that He does not allow them to do now.

Khidr (peace be upon him) was ordered by God to kill an INDIVIDUAL boy due to his future sins. Khidr was not ordered by God to kill entire cities, including babies & livestock, due to the sins of others. And the fact that Moses (peace be upon him) was so shocked by the killing shows that this is not normal, though the genocides appear to be normal in the OT. It shows that it was not accepted during the time of Moses as shown by his reaction.

True, you did. Let's focus on the situations of Muslims in China and North Korea. Should they demand that these governments abide by their own laws on religion?

I don't see how this is different to my previous explanations that the population of a government can resist (whether it's through words or by sword) or emigrate if they do not agree with the leadership.

So if the far right takes control in Europe or the US, it would be valid of them to make new laws that restricted Islam, correct?

We don't govern the rules for other countries.

How is it hypocritical?

In your religion, your scriptures convey that God did not approve of the way the Amalekites oppressed the Israelites, but then the Israelites turn around and mercilessly kill the inhabitants of entire cities.

How would not making marriage between men and women illegal be supporting one case of oppression and not the other?

You have said in the past that the fact that I am not outspoken about West Papua & Indonesia but am about Palestine (or whatever countries), I am hypocritical. So would it be hypocritical of you to support marriages between men and women but not between those of the same gender? Would you protest in favor of one but not the other in terms of marriage rights?

 

[smaneck]

Actually, Islaam does offer religious freedom, just not to the extent that you want it. It offers religious freedom so long as it does not go against not go against the laws (which would be based on the Qur'aan & sunnah). And this amount of freedom has actually made Western historians say that the non-Muslims under the protection of these Islaamic countries enjoyed a significant amount of freedom not found in areas ruled by other religions (particularly Christianity).

That was true in pre-modern times, it is not true today. In fact minorities now have considerably less freedom in Islamic countries than they do in predominantly Christian countries.

 

[All Englands Skies]

Actually, Islaam does offer religious freedom, just not to the extent that you want it. It offers religious freedom so long as it does not go against not go against the laws (which would be based on the Qur'aan & sunnah). And this amount of freedom has actually made Western historians say that the non-Muslims under the protection of these Islaamic countries enjoyed a significant amount of freedom not found in areas ruled by other religions (particularly Christianity).

So you dont offer religious freedom, they offered some sort of tolerance, thats it, Islam is still stop dog and we're not allowed to spread the Gospel freely (which is one of the main things we're instructed to do in our own faith)

Thats no freedom at all and something Muslims wouldnt accept if enforced upon them. If the so called "Christian world" started to ban people spreading non-Christian faiths (Islam included), none of you lot would sit there and accept it and think it was fair, you wouldnt consider that "Freedom"

You're okay with imposing upon others, aslong as its Muslims doing the imposing, thats where your complaints about muslims being persecuted lose value, when you're okay with Muslim imposing there way of life on others, it makes you a hypocrite, nothing more.

I disagree with Islam, but I wouldnt impose my rules upon Muslims, so theres a key diffrence when I take exeption to the way Christians are treated, I dont think we should force our way upon others.

 

[smaneck]

If the so called "Christian world" started to ban people spreading non-Christian faiths (Islam included), none of you lot would sit there and accept it and think it was fair, you wouldnt consider that "Freedom"

Christendom did that for many, many centuries.

 

[wn123455]

I can't say "wa alaikum" to this because I'd be promoting shirk (polytheism). And I don't believe I will get any peace from a human that is not in control of anything.

That they have the right to fight against who they see as oppressors? Certainly.

Oh, well I take Indonesia as a Muslim country (and West Papua is part of Indonesia).

I listened to an NPR segment on West Papua and I did some research on the country itself. That's about it for now.

A killer can be a Christian.

Actually, Islaam does offer religious freedom, just not to the extent that you want it. It offers religious freedom so long as it does not go against not go against the laws (which would be based on the Qur'aan & sunnah). And this amount of freedom has actually made Western historians say that the non-Muslims under the protection of these Islaamic countries enjoyed a significant amount of freedom not found in areas ruled by other religions (particularly Christianity).

Persecuted Christians would actually prefer to live under Muslim rule than Christian rule. Same with the Jews & there are records of Jews encouraging other Jews in Christian nations to move to the Muslim nations. And at this time, the Muslim nations had considerable Islaamic influence.

They can fight back. And I believe that they are resisting in China. I virtually know nothing about the Muslims of North Korea so I can't really comment.

But Muslim nations are not determining the laws for non-Muslim nations? If they want to attack the theoretical Islaamic nation, obviously the Islaamic nation won't want them to, but I doubt that the non-Muslim nation will abide by the wishes of the Islaamic nation.

I'm confused. Are we talking about other nations attacking the offending Muslim nation? Or the Muslim population of the Islaamic country attacking its own government?

Yeah, there is no punishment for conquering lands. As for intentionally targeting non-combatant non-Muslims during war, I'm not sure what is supposed to happen in terms of punishments though I DO know the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) strongly disapproved when he found a woman killed during a battle (which was when he told us that non-combatant women and children are to be avoided if possible). As for intentionally targeting non-combatant non-Muslims who are supposed to be protected, then this is a sin, but again, I don't know what the punishment is for a person who does this. This is completely outside the little level of knowledge that I do have about Islaam (which is very little compared to what I should have).

May Allaah guide us all to the Straight Path.

They should keep resisting or emigrate if possible. I did say that if a portion of the population does not like the laws & does not want to agree to them, they have the right to resist.

I'm saying that I'm not taking away their ability to fight. I would not want them to succeed in overtaking the country, though.

Probably, but I know of 3rd hand accounts of entire families being killed by Sikhs. And yet I have met people who generally ignore that and assume that Sikhs are more peaceful than Muslims.

You're welcome & answered above.

1.) We demand that nations rule by their own laws.

2.) It's still hypocritical of your religion even if you do not want to say that it's hypocritical of the Israelites.

I'm asking why *we* should conform to Christianity's rules in our nations. That's my point.

Khidr (peace be upon him) was ordered by God to kill an INDIVIDUAL boy due to his future sins. Khidr was not ordered by God to kill entire cities, including babies & livestock, due to the sins of others. And the fact that Moses (peace be upon him) was so shocked by the killing shows that this is not normal, though the genocides appear to be normal in the OT. It shows that it was not accepted during the time of Moses as shown by his reaction.

I don't see how this is different to my previous explanations that the population of a government can resist (whether it's through words or by sword) or emigrate if they do not agree with the leadership.

We don't govern the rules for other countries.

In your religion, your scriptures convey that God did not approve of the way the Amalekites oppressed the Israelites, but then the Israelites turn around and mercilessly kill the inhabitants of entire cities.

You have said in the past that the fact that I am not outspoken about West Papua & Indonesia but am about Palestine (or whatever countries), I am hypocritical. So would it be hypocritical of you to support marriages between men and women but not between those of the same gender? Would you protest in favor of one but not the other in terms of marriage rights?

So you believe West Papua is part of indonesia and you believe the islamists in China have the right to resist Chinese rule. Do you believe Spain to be muslim land? Do you believe the Armenian genocide happened? Do you believe Cyprus belongs to the turks? East Turkestan independence movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The uighurs are not native to Xinjiang.

 

[smaneck]

So you believe West Papua is part of indonesia and you believe the islamists in China have the right to resist Chinese rule. Do you believe Spain to be muslim land? Do you believe the Armenian genocide happened?

Given you deny what is happening to Muslims in Myanmar, you are hardly one to talk.

Do you believe Cyprus belongs to the turks?

It is a land of two peoples. If a Greek military coup hadn't overthrown Makarios things would probably be okay there.

East Turkestan independence movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The uighurs are not native to Xinjiang.

Excuse me, the Uighus have been living there since at least the eighth century. The Uighurs were originally Manichean and Buddhist. They don't become Muslim until the 10th century. The only people who are thought to have lived in that area longer were some Indo-European whose language has since gone extinct.

 

[wn123455]

Given you deny what is happening to Muslims in Myanmar, you are hardly one to talk.



It is a land of two peoples. If a Greek military coup hadn't overthrown Makarios things would probably be okay there.



Excuse me, the Uighus have been living there since at least the eighth century. The Uighurs were originally Manichean and Buddhist. They don't become Muslim until the 10th century. The only people who are thought to have lived in that area longer were some Indo-European whose language has since gone extinct.

Muslims Massacre Buddhists In Myanmar > New English Review I know what is happening in Myanmar. Greeks were in Cyprus before the turks. Greeks are the natives and the turks are the settlers in Cyprus. The uighurs are not native to Xinjiang as the wikipedia page says so.

 

[smaneck]

Muslims Massacre Buddhists In Myanmar > New English Review I know what is happening in Myanmar. Greeks were in Cyprus before the turks. Greeks are the natives and the turks are the settlers in Cyprus. The uighurs are not native to Xinjiang as the wikipedia page says so.

Isn't that the website with all the white-supremists stuff?

Yes, Greeks were in Cyprus before the Turks. Greeks were in Turkey before the Turks. So what? The Turks who are now there were born there, therefore they are natives. I am a California native, even though my ancestors were from Europe. I saw nothing in that article from wikipedia that suggested that Uighurs are not native to Xinjiang. They were there before the Chinese took over.

In any case if you can come up with evidence that Buddhists are not massacring Muslims from a *reputable* website we will be happy to look at it. As of now, I put you in the same category as other holocaust deniers.

 

[wn123455]

Isn't that the website with all the white-supremists stuff?

Yes, Greeks were in Cyprus before the Turks. Greeks were in Turkey before the Turks. So what? The Turks who are now there were born there, therefore they are natives. I am a California native, even though my ancestors were from Europe. I saw nothing in that article from wikipedia that suggested that Uighurs are not native to Xinjiang. They were there before the Chinese took over.

In any case if you can come up with evidence that Buddhists are not massacring Muslims from a *reputable* website we will be happy to look at it. As of now, I put you in the same category as other holocaust deniers.

I do not think the website I linked is run by white supremacists. The part in that article where uighurs are not native is in the argument against independence part. But give your definition of native it is probably nor relevant. By reputable websites do you mean websites like the ihh website or electronicintifada that is linked by some muslims and/or islamists on this forum?