Great, now I seemed to have forgotten what I came to reply to, and I don't feel up to the task of diving back into this beast of a thread and finding out.
The infidels (Kafirs) concept puzzles me. What is the opinion of the Muslim World in regards to the historical push of the Muslim religion into Europe (present day Spain and the Balkans) and also the push into the Indian subcontinent? OK......tell us what isn't true in this article. <a HREF="http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Discrimination%20against%20non-Muslims%20in%20Saudi%20Arabia">Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia</a> Do you still agree with the Saudi implementation of things?
- Actually, that's something I'm exploring right now. As I understand it, they were spreading Islam. What is the reason for the METHOD in which they were spreading it is exactly what I'm trying to discover. I'm completely open to the concept that they were wrong in doing what they did, just like I think the way it was spread into Persia was wrong. Omar Bin Al Khattab forced Islam into Persia, and we can see the effects today - when you are forced to do something, you will never do it with maximum efficiency. - I don't understand what you're asking of me from that article. But I do agree with everything in it ONLY for Saudi. Being free about other religions is something I wouldn't want anywhere near Mekka. YOu are allowed to pratice in private - are you asking that people be allowed to practice in public? Saudis are all Muslims I believe, so if you want to practice in public, feel free to go to another country since you're not in your homeland anyway.
That's as goofy as saying "America was founded in Christianity, so if you wanna practice something else, go home." Who's the elitist here? The religion that declares all other "infidel" that's who.
Well.....when somebody has those intentions against Islam or actually carries through with them.....they are viewed as an infidel (Kafir). Would those (Muslims) who did the same things against Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoarastarians etc be considered OK by the Muslim people? <a HREF="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/72E2FDE3-CDF2-475A-B020-B282DE638811.htm">The history of Jerusalem</a> <i>.........In AD135 the Roman emperor Hadrian rebuilt the city, giving it new walls and officially naming the land as Palestine while re-naming Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina in honour to his pagan God, Jupiter. From AD313, with the widespread acceptance of Christianity by Rome, Jerusalem underwent a revival, greatly aided by St Helena (wife of Emperor Constantine), who sponsored much re-building of the city in the early 4th century. It became a centre for Christian pilgrimage. By AD638, with the rapid spread of a new religion in the region, Islam, the city was captured by an army led by Abu Ubaydah under the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab and Islam came to Palestine. Ever since the time of Muhammad, Muslims have considered Jerusalem to be an important place for pilgrimage after Makka, due to its religious significance as being the place of the prophet’s miraculous journey to heaven. ...........</i> Permitting Christians and Jews to live in Muslim lands doesn't seem as benevolent as you portray it to be if it takes an army to make it <i>Muslim lands</i>. I already know about the <i>Defender of the Two Mosques</i> concept for Saudi Arabia, but what does Eastern Saudi Arabia bordering on the Persian Gulf have to do with Mecca which is on the other side of the country? Perhaps 500 - 600 miles away.........yet other religions still have to stay in the shadows. Speaking of Eastern Saudi Arabia......... the Shia don't seem to be considered equal to the Sunni in the article that I quoted earlier. If <i>Saudis are all Muslims</i>.......why are some more equal than others? Post 9-11, there were some incidents against a few Mosques and a few Muslims in the U.S. and there was a concensus that it wasn't right for people to react like that. Yet....religions (other than Islam) have to hide in Saudi Arabia. You will probably respond on a religious level, but that ignores the freedom and respect level that the Muslim World seems oblivious to. If a Saudi moves to the U.S. .......should he be allowed to attend a mosque that is visible (practicing in public)? He is in the minority in the U.S. and <b> he isn't in his homeland anyway.</b>
Still waiting on you replying to my post. Until you can defend your previous argument, I suggest you don't start another one.
- You are absolutely right. Forcing Islam onto a person is forbidden. That is why I'm looking into this - there must be some reason, some exception, something... There is definitely no quote in the Qura'an that says "go make everyone Muslims by force, if they don't agree, kill them"... I guarantee you that much. You have to understand that those actions happened long ago, at a time when war was the classic means of resolving matters. Most religions went through this phase in fact, conquering lands and spreading their religion. Oh, and it may not be benevolent, but it's a hell of a lot better than what everyone else would do... Which is just kill them. - It really doesnt matter. If other countries in the Arab Gulf had balls, they would do the same. The region is supposed to be protected. As it is, Mecca unfortunately is beginning to see its first signs of theft and other minor crimes. It's really nothing that anyone can argue with - it's a Muslim country where Muslim law applies. The law is written such that other religions are not spread in the country. - I could respond on a religous level, but nothing needs to be said in that regard... But understand this: The U.S. is a free country. Saudi is not. So when you come to a country, and they tell you that you can practice whatever religion you want, then you should expect JUST that. You don't expect to go there, practice your religion and have your place of worship attacked. Likewise, when you come to a country and it is well known that you are not allowed to freely practice your religion in public, then you should expect JUST that. If you know that, and you come to this country and break those laws/rules, then you know exactly what you're getting into. - Sunnis and Shi3as have certain different beliefs. Saudi is mostly Sunni and Iran, for example, is almost all Shi3a. So if you are a Sunni in Iran, like me, you will not be well-recieved. Vice versa for Saudi. In Iraq, there's a decent amount of both, so there's less discrimination. - As for your question about a Saudi in the U.S., yes he should be allowed. Firstly, he is allowed by law to do so. Secondly, America is not a secular (right word?) country. America is not a Christian country. Saudi is, however, a Muslim country.
This post by inSane is exactly the reason why I don't want people who interpret their religion like that to spread it to Western countries - because they are intolerant. The problem here is that the more tolerant our Western societies are - and in principle, I would absolutely be for being tolerant and letting them build mosques and whatever - the more we invite this spirit of intolerance to gain a foothold in our own countries. Sad but true.
Isn't that exactly what I am saying, that this is a problem? It's a real dilemma - how do you deal with intolerance if you want to be tolerant? How about this example: You like to be a hospitable person and you like having guests and you condemn violence. Now, if someone comes into your house and starts hitting your children and telling them what to do, then what do you do? You hit back to defend your children and thereby you are violent? And then Mr. SMARTIEPANTS MEOWGI comes and asks "But aren't you doing exactlly [sic] what you are condemning?" Basically, what inSane is saying is "Nobody should be allowed to practice their religion in Saudi-Arabia except Muslims". The logical conclusion would be that Muslims should not be allowed to practice their religion in Western countries, right? That's not what we, as tolerant Westerners, want. So, thinking this through, what might this lead to? People who think like inSane basically do not really respect other religions (I remember him starting a thread where he "innocently" more or less announced the "superiority" of the Muslim religion over all the "infidel" religions (yes, I don't think he used that word)). So doesn't that mean that if people with that kind of thinking had the power to do so, they would not allow people to follow their "infidel" religions (as inSane proposes it for Saudi-Arabia)? But aren't us Westerners - with our tolerant approach - giving these people a chance to advance that mission? As a conclusion, I am not saying that we should become intolerant. However, I am saying that we need to be cautious and weary of those who are intolerant. And we need to prevent them from achieving their mission. Perhaps we can help them and educate them. If we cannot do that, we have to be ready to defend our values. When our tolerance reaches a point where it is getting abused to promote intolerance, we have to draw a line.
As a sidenote, even though I sometimes find whatever Sane posts pretty insane, I think he is only confused, but does not seem to be an aggressive person - on the contrary, it seems like he is a nice guy who is honestly looking for truth and who is open to discourse and debate despite his apparent indoctrination. The problem is, I think there are way too many people who have similar beliefs as Sane who ARE aggressive and ready to force those views onto others. That's where it becomes not only difficult, but dangerous to cope with intolerant thoughts as those uttered by Sane in various threads, and that's why I might be a little harsh on Sane here.
You see SJC, you make it sound as if I think Islam should be practiced anywhere but other religions shouldn't, when that's simply not true. I honestly couldn't give a rat's ass if Islam was not allowed to be openly practiced in the U.S. or anywhere else. It's hard enough being a good Muslim in a decent country, much less the U.S., where the temptation to sin is overwhelming. What I AM sayign is that, currently, Saudi doesn't allow other religions to practice openly while the U.S. does. Now if that law changes, fine by me. However, as long as the law states I can do whatever the fudge I want in the United States of America, then anyone who lays a hand on me for doing so is WRONG. As for your last post, I just want to say that I do respect people's opinions and really, it's great to know that you don't think I'm agressive or forward with my ideas. However, personally, I don't feel confused at all. Deep down, I really believe that I have found the right religion, the truth, and I realize that everyone feels that way about their religion. But as a human being, if I feel I know something that would benefit everyone else, there's always that temptation to want to help everyone else. In Islam, we say the important thing is the heart's true intention. My intention is not to force my ideas on anyone, it's just that I truly truly just want to share my knowledge, maybe someone will identify with it, maybe someone will show me proof that I'm clearly wrong. Things can get a bit intense here in the D&D, but I'm sure we can always maintain a level of respect, which is why I don't really worry about your "harsh" posts as I know we're just exchanging ideas to benefit each other. After all, that's what a BBS is for, whether it's the D&D or otherwise.
Yep, Too bad you can't have this conversation in the open in Saudi Arabia with a women in a pair of jeans. DD
After reading through this thread Ive noticed that some of you are commenting on something you do not know much about. A few points that I would like to make are: 1 - translating between languages is never a good idea...inaccuracies are inevitable. Even some slang English terms, when translated literally, can be taken harshly. 2 - assuming you know more than you actually do is completely ignorant on your part. 3 - never group people...for example, if someone had a brother who was a rapist, would that make that person a rapist as well? ofcourse not! Regards
Sane, I must say I admire how you took my somewhat rude posts (with the "inSane" stuff). I was the one who crossed the line and who chose possibly offensive words to make my point. Apologies for that and thanks for your well-tempered response.
So veiled women are incapable of having this same discussion or is it that you don't respect women's views and would like to have something to look at during such a conversation?
Sane - Christians believe the original texts were divinely inspired. We recognize the transcription errors that may have occurred. But I've gone round and round with you and others here about the accuracy of the documents, themselves, with the original texts. We know, for example, the book of isaiah, was not touched up...because we found the dead sea scrolls which translate directly like a church pew bible. Isaiah is the book that Christ quoted from the most. There are all sorts of articles about the integrity of the early christian writings...you can google it and check it out if you want. I've just had the discussion so many times here, that I'm not willing to re-engage on it right now. Maybe I will later.
Veiled women, you have got to be joking. A religion that requires a women ( A FRICKEN HUMAN BEING ) to be subservient and wear a costume covering up her from top to bottom can not be taken seriously. This is why I despise religions, they put rules in place that are only there to keep their leaders in charge, or keep a group of people under control. Wearing veils is ludicrous, what is the point of that? I mean really? Women are equal to men in every way, and should not be treated as lessor beings simply because some book written by MAN dictates it. I honestly do not see how any intelligent person can believe writtings from a different period in time that were designed to control the ignorant masses. Just floors me. DD
The point of wearing a veil in Islam is exactly the same as the reasonf or nuns being covered up. To protect the sanctity of the women. Do you know that the woman bears all the sin if she doesn't cover up and someone sees her and has whatever inappropriate thoughts about her? Because you see, there's nothing a man can do about it. Humans are always temted to look, and you will most definitely do it often in your life. Even by mistake, you may look up once and see something you're not supposed to see. Now, there's nothing you can do about it, you will make this human error no matter how hard you try. But the women can do something, and that's cover up. I don't know why you consider it degrading. Have you lived in the Middle East DaDa? It's really not a big deal. It's so normal here, people don't notice it. You're not allowed to force it on anyone, so the people who are wearing it either want to or HAVE to wear it for one reason or another. So many of my friends travelled to Canada and th U.S. only to come back here and decide that they actually want to cover up. I know you're poking at the "Written by man" thing, but I'm just not willing to get into that argument with you. We;ve had the argument before, and clearly you don't want to change your views regardless of the discussion.
