I have issues with Islam

[FunctionalAtheist]

A good example of Sharia is muslims in Islamic countries are calling for it. It is foreign powers that are waging a war on Islamic countries in the name of democratizing them that is stalling the change. The infidels have to be dealt with first.
Islam has all the answers. It is disrespectful to express an opinion before you have exhausted all the opinions already available to you from the Quran and prophets teachings. It is like speaking out of turn, speaking before understanding which leads to unattractive consequences.

It was mohummed who spoke out of turn. If he had never opened his mouth, the world would be much more attractive today.

 

[Harikrish]

It was mohummed who spoke out of turn. If he had never opened his mouth, the world would be much more attractive today.

I hope the cartoonists were born again Christians because the martyrs delivered them to to Jesus. I believe they even mocked and insulted Jesus.
Any wonder why Jesus views Islamists favourable.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I hope the cartoonists were born again Christians because the martyrs delivered them to to Jesus. I believe they even mocked and insulted Jesus.
Any wonder why Jesus views Islamists favourable.

I do not follow why you think these poor murdered people were sent to jesus? And I never heard of jesus viewing islam as favorable. That must be another lie mohummed told in the quran.

 

[wizanda]

In our present modern world there is one Religion that stands out from the rest with the most violence and intolerance and complete disregard for the lives and feelings of those of different beliefs from it's members and that Religion is....

Have you even looked at the Talmud? Goyim are slaves to the Jews, who are the only true humans; the rest of us are animals, according to what is written.
Stop watching owned mainstream media and you might find the picture is entirely different.

 

[Spiderman]

Yes the Talmud is disgusting.

My point is that Jews in our modern world are not instituting laws that require such nonsense

 

[Spiderman]

So you cannot give me good example of sharia TODAY? I was hoping you could give me a good example from what you call muslim lands? Would you thing saudi is a good example, where they whip people for having opinions?

Saudi is a good example.

Yes, this is what the quran reads when I pick it up. I have not been raised and told what it is 'supposed' to mean. I just began reading it with a blank mind, and this is what it says. Every GOOD MUSLIM has a duty to jihad against the infidel. And this is why Mohummad is an ignorant ***.

Does it actually say "duty to Jihad against the infidel"? Gross!

 

[ginaleanne]

Have you seen any of this first hand or know someone that you trust who has seen it first hand? I just would like to know because it makes me sad to see people have issues with other groups, religious or political, based on something they read or heard from the media.

I have never met a Muslim who was in any way intolerant, judging or overbearing and my own PERSONAL experiences and impression of the religion based on individuals is that it is a religion of peace. That completely contradicts what I have read and heard about through the media. With that said, I just want to say that I make my judgements based on what I have experienced not on what a entity that wants to sale newspapers, magazines and part of that entails promoting and manipulating violence in order to fuel wars etc, I think you and everyone here that agrees with you is wrong.

Don't base all your opinions on what you see on FOX news. Rupert Murdoch and those like him usually have an agenda.

 

[Spiderman]

Have you seen any of this first hand or know someone that you trust who has seen it first hand? I just would like to know because it makes me sad to see people have issues with other groups, religious or political, based on something they read or heard from the media.

I have never met a Muslim who was in any way intolerant, judging or overbearing and my own PERSONAL experiences and impression of the religion based on individuals is that it is a religion of peace. That completely contradicts what I have read and heard about through the media. With that said, I just want to say that I make my judgements based on what I have experienced not on what a entity that wants to sale newspapers, magazines and part of that entails promoting and manipulating violence in order to fuel wars etc, I think you and everyone here that agrees with you is wrong.

Don't base all your opinions on what you see on FOX news. Rupert Murdoch and those like him usually have an agenda.

Read or heard from the media? I have seen women getting their heads crushed with bricks and shot for committing adultery, and filmed, and limbs being cut off and a man was just beheaded in Syria for doing card tricks in the streets for distracting people from prayer.

These aren't lies. Muhammad demanded that people commit many of these atrocities. There is no need for media propaganda.

DO you know any people personally who died in the Holocaust? So are you gonna say it is media propaganda or don't trust that it happened? of course not!

I don't even watch fox news.

 

[Woodrow LI]

Why Islamic law is official in Israel
14/02/2008
By Anshel Pfeffer, Jerusalem
Not only is sharia law officially recognized by the justice system in Israel in everything regarding the personal status of Muslims, but the judges of the sharia courts are officially appointed by a joint ministerial-parliamentary committee and their salaries paid for by the state. Ironically, this arrangement originates from the days when Britain was the Mandate power in Palestine.
Source The Jewish Chronicle - Why Islamic law is official in Israel

Israel is probably the only Nation that has actual sharia law. Kind of Interesting.
Some interesting things about the Sharia court in ISRAEL

A rabbi and a sharia court judge walk into an auditorium
What are a Jewish rabbi and a Muslim Sharia court judge doing together on a speaking tour?
SOURCE A rabbi and a sharia court judge walk into an auditorium | OnFaith

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Why Islamic law is official in Israel
14/02/2008
By Anshel Pfeffer, Jerusalem
Not only is sharia law officially recognized by the justice system in Israel in everything regarding the personal status of Muslims, but the judges of the sharia courts are officially appointed by a joint ministerial-parliamentary committee and their salaries paid for by the state. Ironically, this arrangement originates from the days when Britain was the Mandate power in Palestine.
Source The Jewish Chronicle - Why Islamic law is official in Israel

Israel is probably the only Nation that has actual sharia law. Kind of Interesting.

Seperate but equal only works if everyone wants to be separate. Unfortuanantly, this separate but equal is preferable to all out chaos. But how can it work for marriages between a jew and a muslim? Additionally it presumes that everyone has a religion and that all religions have a court. How do atheists and hindus fair in israel?

Some interesting things about the Sharia court in ISRAEL

A rabbi and a sharia court judge walk into an auditorium
What are a Jewish rabbi and a Muslim Sharia court judge doing together on a speaking tour?
SOURCE A rabbi and a sharia court judge walk into an auditorium | OnFaith

There is always hope!

 

[Woodrow LI]

Seperate but equal only works if everyone wants to be separate. Unfortuanantly, this separate but equal is preferable to all out chaos. But how can it work for marriages between a jew and a muslim? Additionally it presumes that everyone has a religion and that all religions have a court. How do atheists and hindus fair in israel?There is always hope!

Interfaith marriage has not been much of an issue.
While in Judaism a Jewish man is permitted to marry a Muslim woman a Jewish woman is not permitted to marry a Muslim man
likewise in Islam a Muslim man is permitted to marry a Jewish woman but a Muslim woman is not permitted to marry a Jewish man.

I have not seen or heard of were it has become an issue.
What I have seen as an issue is intermarriage between Israelis and Palestinians even in cases they were both the same religion.
There are Christian, Jewish and Muslim Palestinians also Christian, Muslim and Jewish Israelis
It is often a big hassle if an Israeli and Palestinian attempt to marry even if both are Jewish, Muslim or Christian.

 

[Woodrow LI]

Seperate but equal only works if everyone wants to be separate. Unfortuanantly, this separate but equal is preferable to all out chaos. But how can it work for marriages between a jew and a muslim? Additionally it presumes that everyone has a religion and that all religions have a court. How do atheists and hindus fair in israel?There is always hope!

Israel is approx 30% Atheist. If memory serves me correctly about 80% of Israeli Jews are non-Practicing.
I think in the near future Israel will become the first Majority Atheist Nation

 

[Harikrish]

I do not follow why you think these poor murdered people were sent to jesus? And I never heard of jesus viewing islam as favorable. That must be another lie mohummed told in the quran.

Gentiles, atheists and Christians are all headed to Jesus for judgement. Because they were critical of Jesus as well, there is worst to come their way. As for the martyrs. No Muslim will cry for them. They will be greeted by blushing virgins in paradise.

 

[Harikrish]

I do not follow why you think these poor murdered people were sent to jesus? And I never heard of jesus viewing islam as favorable. That must be another lie mohummed told in the quran.

You forget Jesus is mentioned more times in the Quran than the prophet. You should read Jesus in Islam.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You forget Jesus is mentioned more times in the Quran than the prophet. You should read Jesus in Islam.

LOL, again thank you for the humor. I said 'it must be a lie in the quran an you said it's in the quran LOL.

You should try to 'think' man! It's not that hard. Do you know what it feels like to have a thought that is free from dogma? At the very least read twice before responding. But then again I wouldn't have as much humor.

 

[Harikrish]

LOL, again thank you for the humor. I said 'it must be a lie in the quran an you said it's in the quran LOL.

You should try to 'think' man! It's not that hard. Do you know what it feels like to have a thought that is free from dogma? At the very least read twice before responding. But then again I wouldn't have as much humor.

Do you know what it is to have thoughts that is separated from your body? You never get to know if it was free from dogma. You won't need much humour then.

 

[Chev Chelios]

I provided you a definition of hateful that includes "arousing hatred"

You say benign. I ask you to reevalute. The cartoons were satire, which you can look up for yourself. Ridicule IS NOT benign. It is intended to offend. How is something intended to offend benign? I'm asking you a fair question. And I answered yours.

Yes - but just because something aroused hatred doesn't necessarily mean that what caused this evocation of hate was in itself hateful. An easy case in point, I think Muhammad was a very bad man, a murderer who also forced a woman into marriage after which he then procedded to rape her (Safiyah) and I also happen to believe that he absused an under age girl - these opinions are based on using common sense when evaluating authentic Islamic scripture. Many moslems will likely feel hate at me for saying that however what I just said was not hateful - I assure you that I do not hate Moslems. Does that make sense? As for a cartoon - its a cartoon and nothing is more benign than a cartoon!

 

[Chev Chelios]

I provided you a definition of hateful that includes "arousing hatred"

You say benign. I ask you to reevalute. The cartoons were satire, which you can look up for yourself. Ridicule IS NOT benign. It is intended to offend. How is something intended to offend benign? I'm asking you a fair question. And I answered yours.

Now, getting further into this - you cannot really defame a religion nor can you inflict libel by mocking religious figures and symbols and so I feel that you are conflating satire with hate speech and incitement here. I also think that you are misidentifying the target of those cartoons - see, none of those cartoons actually targets the individual Moslem but rather, they were aimed at mocking religious symbols as well as some of the non sensical beliefs of a belief system - such as one which deems it illegal, and punishable by death, if one was to draw the prophet of Islam. I can't think of an idea which is more deserving of ridicule - can you? (death for those who leave their faith may give it a good run for its money though).

So, I actually do not see this bizarre parallel being made with the mocking of the founder of a religion and the unsavoury aspects of a religions precepts as being a personal attack on Moslems. If said individual Moslem, who was not the specific target, chooses to be offended then they do so at their own volition, but they are accountable for their response - not the cartoonists.

If you really do believe that mocking Islam is hate speech then in order to remain credible I presume that you also see the attacks on Christianity, which has been mocked to a greater extent than Islam by Charlie Hebdo, as being an example of hate against Christians?? Assuming your answer is a given, therefore, I ask quite seriously - how on earth is one to mock any Religion if said mockery is hate speech? If we take your argument to its logical conclusion it will inevitably suggest that you believe there should be deference to all religions - unless you are arguing that one particular faith is to be put beyond criticism and so be given special treatment therefore by its very definition putting it above all other faiths?

Thus, I believe your argument ends with a protective veneer being applied to belief systems per se and that is a very dangerous thing to do, it is a road which leads to Tyranny and takes us all the way back to the pre-enlightened times of theocracy. Free speech is our fundamental protection which allows us to scrutinise values, if we lose this important check point then how can we possibly hope to protect ourselves from the obvious dangers which can eminate from dangerous ideas which can be allowed to foster into something else?

It was for this reason that Charlie Hebdo sought to protect the boundaries of our freedom by not allowing themselves to be subjected to blasphemy laws of a faith which wants to say what our society can and can't be - they fully well knew what was at stake. And in being an equal opportunities offender, they realised that by subjecting Islam to the same treatment as everyone else would bring about the urgently needed taming and domesticating of this faith with the effect of breaking this absurd taboo of discussing Islam, thereby bringing it within the sphere of legitimate social commentary, critique and debate. Just like the rest.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Now, getting further into this - you cannot really defame a religion nor can you inflict libel by mocking religious figures and symbols and so I feel that you are conflating satire with hate speech and incitement here. I also think that you are misidentifying the target of those cartoons - see, none of those cartoons actually targets the individual Moslem but rather, they were aimed at mocking religious symbols as well as some of the non sensical beliefs of a belief system - such as one which deems it illegal, and punishable by death, if one was to draw the prophet of Islam. I can't think of an idea which is more deserving of ridicule - can you? (death for those who leave their faith may give it a good run for its money though).

So, I actually do not see this bizarre parallel being made with the mocking of the founder of a religion and the unsavoury aspects of a religions precepts as being a personal attack on Moslems. If said individual Moslem, who was not the specific target, chooses to be offended then they do so at their own volition, but they are accountable for their response - not the cartoonists.

If you really do believe that mocking Islam is hate speech then in order to remain credible I presume that you also see the attacks on Christianity, which has been mocked to a greater extent than Islam by Charlie Hebdo, as being an example of hate against Christians?? Assuming your answer is a given, therefore, I ask quite seriously - how on earth is one to mock any Religion if said mockery is hate speech? If we take your argument to its logical conclusion it will inevitably suggest that you believe there should be deference to all religions - unless you are arguing that one particular faith is to be put beyond criticism and so be given special treatment therefore by its very definition putting it above all other faiths?

Thus, I believe your argument ends with a protective veneer being applied to belief systems per se and that is a very dangerous thing to do, it is a road which leads to Tyranny and takes us all the way back to the pre-enlightened times of theocracy. Free speech is our fundamental protection which allows us to scrutinise values, if we lose this important check point then how can we possibly hope to protect ourselves from the obvious dangers which can eminate from dangerous ideas which can be allowed to foster into something else?

It was for this reason that Charlie Hebdo sought to protect the boundaries of our freedom by not allowing themselves to be subjected to blasphemy laws of a faith which wants to say what our society can and can't be - they fully well knew what was at stake. And in being an equal opportunities offender, they realised that by subjecting Islam to the same treatment as everyone else would bring about the urgently needed taming and domesticating of this faith with the effect of breaking this absurd taboo of discussing Islam, thereby bringing it within the sphere of legitimate social commentary, critique and debate. Just like the rest.

I do not equate satire with hate speech. I support fully the freedom of expressions and satire. Satire, by it's very nature, is MEANT TO RIDICULE. I use it all the time. It can be hateful, which does not equate to hate speech.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Now, getting further into this - you cannot really defame a religion nor can you inflict libel by mocking religious figures and symbols and so I feel that you are conflating satire with hate speech and incitement here. I also think that you are misidentifying the target of those cartoons - see, none of those cartoons actually targets the individual Moslem but rather, they were aimed at mocking religious symbols as well as some of the non sensical beliefs of a belief system - such as one which deems it illegal, and punishable by death, if one was to draw the prophet of Islam. I can't think of an idea which is more deserving of ridicule - can you? (death for those who leave their faith may give it a good run for its money though).

So, I actually do not see this bizarre parallel being made with the mocking of the founder of a religion and the unsavoury aspects of a religions precepts as being a personal attack on Moslems. If said individual Moslem, who was not the specific target, chooses to be offended then they do so at their own volition, but they are accountable for their response - not the cartoonists.

If you really do believe that mocking Islam is hate speech then in order to remain credible I presume that you also see the attacks on Christianity, which has been mocked to a greater extent than Islam by Charlie Hebdo, as being an example of hate against Christians?? Assuming your answer is a given, therefore, I ask quite seriously - how on earth is one to mock any Religion if said mockery is hate speech? If we take your argument to its logical conclusion it will inevitably suggest that you believe there should be deference to all religions - unless you are arguing that one particular faith is to be put beyond criticism and so be given special treatment therefore by its very definition putting it above all other faiths?

Thus, I believe your argument ends with a protective veneer being applied to belief systems per se and that is a very dangerous thing to do, it is a road which leads to Tyranny and takes us all the way back to the pre-enlightened times of theocracy. Free speech is our fundamental protection which allows us to scrutinise values, if we lose this important check point then how can we possibly hope to protect ourselves from the obvious dangers which can eminate from dangerous ideas which can be allowed to foster into something else?

It was for this reason that Charlie Hebdo sought to protect the boundaries of our freedom by not allowing themselves to be subjected to blasphemy laws of a faith which wants to say what our society can and can't be - they fully well knew what was at stake. And in being an equal opportunities offender, they realised that by subjecting Islam to the same treatment as everyone else would bring about the urgently needed taming and domesticating of this faith with the effect of breaking this absurd taboo of discussing Islam, thereby bringing it within the sphere of legitimate social commentary, critique and debate. Just like the rest.

Would you mind bothering to read my last 10 or 20 posts and explain to me how you can possibly think that I believe mocking islam is hate speech?
https://www.religiousforums.com/search/391059/