Leftie Students Are Completely Silent on the Bigotry of Islam

[Estro Felino]

Just because there are representatives doesn't mean that these representatives will always be in agreement. On top of that, since Islam is what we call a "desert religion". Much of the emphasis is put on the individual, so the individual is not always expected to tow the "company line". Same is true in Judaism with the exception of the chasidim. OTOH, Christianity tends to more emphasize conformity, which is why there are roughly 30,000 denominations.

But you strangely don't wonder why the Jewish UCEI signed while the Islamic UCOII didn't.

Coincidence?

 

[stvdv]

...the heck are you talking about??

I thought the question was "Why Islam does not sign that agreement"
IMO Quran verse 5:51 has a lot to do with that.
I can be wrong, I'm not an expert, so asked it on RF Quran forum. 150 views, none answered
That is why I concluded I might have a point with this verse.
Sofar whenever I misinterpret a Quran verse they are on top of it, except this one.

 

[metis]

But you strangely don't wonder why the Jewish UCEI signed while the Islamic UCOII didn't.

Coincidence?

I assume they had their reasons-- not that I would necessarily agree with any of them. What strikes me about your use of the word "strangely" is that for some reason you expect that I must take sides on an issue that I really haven't studied nor have any particular interest in. .

 

[David1967]

You might want to correct your use of the QUOTE on the above post

Ok. Where did I mess up? I certainly want to avoid the thousand insults.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would like to see a thread where someone can actually name all roughly 30,000. That would be something.

I am not saying that it will be easy, but you can get a good head start by looking at the lists from http://www.adherents.com

 

[stvdv]

Well...they said they cannot accept our secular law because it's too strict. Or quoting their representative "it looks like a police-state imposition"

That is bull. They can't do it because of Quran verse 5:51 IMO.

 

[LuisDantas]

How centralized is Islaam exactly?

The opinions seem to be all over the place.

On the one hand, it has a clear affinity for establishing strong central authorities, going back all the way to Muhammad himself, who was succeeded by many Caliphs and Imams with quite a lot of influence.

Somehow that does not stop claims that it has no central leadership. I don't know quite what to make of those.

 

[metis]

Ok. Where did I mess up? I certainly want to avoid the thousand insults.

On your post #40, the second to the last paragraph was from me, not you, so you need to adjust your QUOTE to reflect that.

I'll seek a plea deal to try and save you.

 

[stvdv]

Thank you ...but it's the Italian Republic...not the Pope

Once I read an interview with the Pope in which he mentioned that he is scared for physical hurt in the context of Islam. So I think the Pope will be "over the moon" that the "Italian Republic" uses this rule. Because the Pope expressed His fear I got the idea that "maybe He suggested it", but hey that is just speculation

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I am not actually aware of the specifics, but there is no need for any one organization or person to speak for all of Italy's Muslims, as long as the most significant groups have established representatives that agree to sign.

According to this news piece, at least, it is possible to find such representatives and negotiate with them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ge-that/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.328b8df10d7f

And failure to clearly acknowledge the authority of the government over that of their faith in matters of law is certainly grounds for questioning the extent of their legal rights. That is true for Muslims as for anyone else. It just turns out that Muslims are the noticeable objectors.

Ok, great.

...and?

 

[LuisDantas]

That is bull. They can't do it because of Quran verse 5:51 IMO.

5:51 is certainly an interesting verse, and in many senses a good example of why Islaam is inherently tied to unsolvable controversies.

The verse itself is fairly clear. But it is also so bold that most Muslims can't help but dilute its actual meaning with their own personal supply of common sense.

Yet they have no authority, which can only come from the Qur'an and the scholars and other people of authority. Which means that the verse can't be truly overcome except in a strictly individual basis, person by person, generation after generation.

In a very real sense, Islaam dooms itself to be a doctrine plagued by serious maladies - and to remain so despite all the sincere effort of its very best adherents.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok, great.

...and?

And of course it is reasonable for a government to hesitate to recognize legal rights to a group that specifically refuses to offer the proper counterpart.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The answer? Don't move there.

The answer "apparently they're happy not having their religion officially recognised". End of story, really.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

5:51 is certainly an interesting verse, and in many senses a good example of why Islaam is inherently tied to unsolvable controversies.

The verse itself is fairly clear. But it is also so bold that most Muslims can't help but dilute its actual meaning with their own personal supply of common sense.

Yet they have no authority, which can only come from the Qur'an and the scholars and other people of authority. Which means that the verse can't be truly overcome except in a strictly individual basis, person by person, generation after generation.

In a very real sense, Islaam dooms itself to be a doctrine plagued by serious maladies - and to remain so despite all the sincere effort of its very best adherents.

Sort of like Judaism and Christianity

 

[Estro Felino]

I assume they had their reasons--. .

Yes..the main reason: signing that agreement will imply that "polygamous marriages" celebrated in mosques will be de jure annulled by any court.

The law is equal for all...it's like a cunning Catholic man could marry a woman in the church...and another woman in the City Hall

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And of course it is reasonable for a government to hesitate to recognize legal rights to a group that specifically refuses to offer the proper counterpart.

Nonsense. The government can refuse to recognise the religion, if signing this whatever it is is the standard for recognition, but where the heck do you get anything about denying anyone legal rights? Do you even know how this particular red herring came up any way?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes..the main reason: signing that agreement will imply that "polygamous marriages" celebrated in mosques will be de jure annulled by any court.

Any evidence for this claim? You know, from actual Muslim sources?

 

[LuisDantas]

The answer "apparently they're happy not having their religion officially recognised". End of story, really.

I wish.

It may well be that some or many Muslims are indeed satisfied with a lack of official recognition of Islaam in Italy.

But they do not seem to be all that prevalent.

Case in point, the agreement proposed in 2017, as documented by this article that I mentioned in post #34.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ge-that/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.328b8df10d7f

 

[LuisDantas]

Sort of like Judaism and Christianity

Quite unlike them, actually.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nonsense. The government can refuse to recognise the religion, if signing this whatever it is is the standard for recognition, but where the heck do you get anything about denying anyone legal rights? Do you even know how this particular red herring came up any way?

What about you producing the full lecture for me to opine on it later? It shall save us some time and effort.