I see your denial, but what you said earlier, is more persuasive. Let it go; if you didn't mean it, it was probably a bad idea to say it.
To be honest, I'm not even sure I've properly kept track of what you're referring to here. What is it that you say that I said earlier that was more persuasive but I should "let go" of now?
We were talking about Europeans doing what you were demanding an apology from Muslims for doing. If you're an American, and made apologies for that, then you shouldn't be whinging about it.
I'm not whinging about anything in the first place. Near as I can tell, the entire phrase that you've latched on to was me saying that if Muslims cared so much about others viewpoints and feelings as they demand that others care about their own viewpoint (with their constant 'whinging' about western colonialism in 'their lands' being the true cause of both every bad thing that has ever happened to a Muslim or Muslims collectively, and of every bad thing a Muslim or a group of Muslims has ever done or will ever do), they'd offer the sorts of apologies demanded by Fr. Zakariya (not me), but they're obviously not going to do that because that would be essentially apologizing for and admitting the wrongness of the entire basis of the societies which they now call 'theirs' which they invaded and stole by their own Arab-Muslim colonialism -- you know, like Westerners have been doing for at least the last 40 years or so.
But instead they throw people like Fatima Naoout in jail for not being on board with erasing the pre-Islamic history of the societies the Arabs invaded and replaced with their savagery in the name of their God, no different than Westerners did to the Native Americans.
I just notice that many people who expect an apology for that, if some Muslims have done it, get upset if anyone applies the same standard to Christians.
Ironic given the above, innit?
If so, you chose a very unfortunate way to express yourself.
Again, you misread or misunderstood what I actually wrote. That's apparently my fault. Go figure.
(Barbarian notes that killing people for being Muslims, burning their houses of worship, and trying to use government to harm them, is exactly what suppression is)
Again, what I am talking about is
legal standards as set in the different societies. I'm
not saying that nobody ever kills a Muslim for being a Muslim, or burns down their mosque, or anything like that.
Geez Louise...are you deliberately mischaracterizing my point for fun or something? I don't get how this is so difficult to grasp.
It's exactly what you were complaining about some Muslims doing to Christians. C'mon.
is it? Is it really? Do you think that the NZ shooter, for instance, is going to get off scott free for killing 49 Muslims the same as the killers of the 21 Copts in El Kosheh did, with
89 people who had been charged with murder all let go? If you do, you must have very little faith in the NZ justice system. Maybe you know something about NZ that I don't.
And Muslims are safer here, precisely because people here are restrained by laws. The same laws that some of our public officials are assailing for protecting them.
I agree.
Killing people, burning their houses of worship, and twisting the law to harm them, seems like more than "social discrimination."
The point is that it's not
legalized discrimination. In the MENA region, non-Muslims face legalized discrimination, in accordance with the Shari'a (or at least
Shari'a compliant, as in Egypt) legal system. In the West, Muslims also face discrimination, but it is not legalized by the laws of the society that actively discriminate against them.
The Bill of Rights is Islam-favoring. And Jewish-favoring. And Christian-favoring. And atheist-favoring.
Hahaha. In other words
not distinctly Islam-favoring. Yes. Thank you. May it be so forever and ever.
This is why people who hate Islam hate our religious freedoms.
You apparently
really want this to be the case, but that doesn't make it so.
