That's an ironic statement. lol You spent this entire thread judging all Muslims.
Best of luck to you too...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Playing Islam's advocate
- Thread starter LuisDantas
- Start date
That's an ironic statement. lol You spent this entire thread judging all Muslims.
Best of luck to you too...
Of course I did. That is the whole point.
People who feel entitled to decide that God disapproves of what I am better expect to be judged by me. Because in so doing, they are pushing me against the wall to decide whether they are worth of my trust and of my respect.
Their choice, not mine.
What else could possibly happen?
Thanks.
Just for your information, there is nothing there I can make sense of.
I think when when it comes to immigration, the rule is easy: immigrants must assimilate
I don't agree for one second that we should back off or compromise our secular values. If ANYONE wants to immigrate to a secular society, they must assimilate and embrace secular values. What's the alternative really? Blasphemy laws? Sharia courts? Of course we cannot compromise on these ideas.
Perhaps you mean respect them and abide by their rules instead?
How far should this assimilation go do you think?
Interesting question! Can you say more about the distinction you're making here? Perhaps with an example comparing and contrasting what I proposed vs. what you proposed?
Let's imagine that immigrants to a secular society bring with them a faith that's seditious by nature. How would we deal with such immigrants?
That is the crux of the matter, indeed.
What is understood by respect and abiding? How reasonable can or should those rules be respected?
To the extent that many Muslims may feel that the world owes the Qur'an and its faith the opportunity to eventually overtake the whole world... they must be frustrated, often and hard.
Respect should not translate into refusal to criticize even when criticism is sorely needed. Nor are any and all rules necessarily worth of respect.
Updated.
Please ignore the previous post similar to this one.
Please ignore the previous post similar to this one.
Let's see... your expression "they must assimilate and embrace secular values" sound like that the should do exactly what the secular values tell, like for example, Muslim immigrant women to Germany should not wear a head scarf (hijab) just because women in Germany don't wear it, even if there is no law against it.
Mine "respect them and abide by their rules" means that if there is a rule enforced, it has to be followed, like if there is a rule banning praying in congregation in public places, Muslim immigrants should not do it and look for somewhere that allows it by the rules.
So, do mean that Muslim women living in non Muslim countries should never wear hijab, or do you mean that if there is a law against it, they should respect it and abide to it?
I think that who goes to a community, should by no means try to impose their values in that community. It is okay to practice the values they want, but not if there are rules against it. I would find a spot and pray in public in a foreign community, but if I knew the law does not allow that, I should not do it and go look for a place where it is allowed. If I don't like that, I should leave. No Muslim has the right to stop people in a nude beach in France from doing what they do, for example. I mean, I wouldn't
That's for the two lines of your post.
As for the rest, I don't think that the world owes the Quran anything. To the contrary, I think having different communities with different values (as a general idea) is a blessing from God so all kinds of people can find a place to go to.
But that's life, Luis...there will be some who don't treat you that way at all. That was all I was getting at. Not everyone pushes their faith on others...
Hey Smart_Guy,
The hijab example is an interesting one, and maybe more complex than it might first seem: In the West - officially - the husband is not in charge of the wife. (Of course bad stuff happens behind closed doors.) So if EVERY Muslim woman in a western community was wearing a hijab in public, I might suspect that coercion is occurring. In other words, an immigrant husband should not be allowed to restrict the freedoms of his wife.
Another example would be Muslims protesting against cartoons of Muhammad. This should be viewed as sedition in my opinion.
The hijab example is an interesting one, and maybe more complex than it might first seem: In the West - officially - the husband is not in charge of the wife. (Of course bad stuff happens behind closed doors.) So if EVERY Muslim woman in a western community was wearing a hijab in public, I might suspect that coercion is occurring. In other words, an immigrant husband should not be allowed to restrict the freedoms of his wife.
Another example would be Muslims protesting against cartoons of Muhammad. This should be viewed as sedition in my opinion.
You don't understand my purpose at all. That is too bad.
It is more complicated than that. A person who was raised inside a culture that just "knows" that certain behaviors are needed and others are unacceptable may very easily find himself or herself ostracized by others who don't even realize that they are being cruel. Friends and family may be fearful of the consequences of "deviant" behavior, but they may also find themselves literally clueless on how to negotiate with the variation from traditional, predictable behavior and roles.
Personal freedoms are, in essence, a delicate construct built by the collective good will of most people in a certain community. They have to be agreed on, maintained, explained and learned anew by every new generation.
It is possible for a Muslim woman to, say, drive a car and have no heat coming her way from friends and family. But in so doing she will not be acting traditionally, and there is very little in the way of mechanisms to accept value changes in traditional Muslim societies. Which in practice means that she will only have significant freedom if she is in the minority, oddly enough.
Again, it is not nearly so simple. Even in very liberal and individualistic societies it is par for the course that a spouse should sometimes defer to his or her partner.
It is, and an unacceptable form of it, too. But it is somewhat difficult to press such a case when one comes from a culture that has so much acceptance of somewhat comparable, disturbing trends such as the birther movement, the current crop of GOP buzzwords or the militaristic mindset that thinks nothing of air strikes in the Middle East.
logically, if their faith is "seditious by nature" that means forcing them to convert to another religion (or lose their faith altogether). but that clearly violates the very principle of secularism, which is that religion is a private and not a public matter, and that individual's have freedom of religion. So I'm not sure where your position leaves you?
Pretty much Germany's and France's current apparent stance: welcoming immigrants but having to curb their excesses and even deport some away.
Exactly! So I'd say that any "religion" that's seditious, isn't really a religion at all, it's something different, something more.
Given how difficult it is to agree on an understanding of what religion is supposed to be, I would rather say that it is a religion that forfeits its respectability.
Simply saying "Islam not a religion" does not deal with that fact that your are establishing a precedent where the government decides what individuals can and should think. that is not consistent with individual liberty or religious freedom. your virtually saying that the entire Muslim world should be converted to Christianity (as a religion that is historically compatable with western civilisation).