Would you Ban Islam?

[lilithu]

You have to wondered if all Muslims, living in Australia, all feel the same way. I know that he mean well, and try to explain Islam to non-Muslims, but his refusal to answer directly, acting like a politician, is not good way for non-Muslims to trust Muslims.

But people had the same concerns about Catholics in the U.S., that their allegiance would be to the Vatican. Part of that is fear of the unknown, the "other." And part of that is because new immigrant groups often (but not always) do feel more allegiance to the culture from whence they came. But they usually socialize to the new culture, whether they want to or not. My mom has been in the U.S. for over 40 years and she still "claims" that she is Chinese more than she is American. Yet I have seen her change over the years; she has become more and more Americanized. And the only time she is really gung-ho about being Chinese is when the U.S. comes into conflict with China. Just imagine how Muslim immigrants feel when they see their religion, and oft times their cultures, being vilified in the West. I could easily see how that would make someone more extreme than they would be if they didn't feel targeted.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I voted none.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Fluffy]

I would say none because I would disagree with the premise that motivated the government to pursue such courses of action, that Islam is an immenient threat to the safety of the public.

 

[gnostic]

Just imagine how Muslim immigrants feel when they see their religion, and oft times their cultures, being vilified in the West. I could easily see how that would make someone more extreme than they would be if they didn't feel targeted.

I seriously think that majority of Muslims, either native born or immigrants, are generally peaceful. I don't doubt that. Non-Muslims should respect their religion. I couldn't care less if they worship their god and devoutly follow their religion, because I don't have any problem with that.

I do have problem with them mixing their religion with their politics and social problems. If some of those immigrants say crap like Islam being the only law that they would follow, then why should we accept them.

Those gang-rapists I had mentioned dragged religion into it, calling the Australian laws and Australians as racists. When did religion ever became a race or ethnic? Their bringing up religion into this and their refusal to recognise Australian law came from their own mouths.

I have no sympathy for them if they break the law. And I have no sympathy for them if they dragged their religion into this.

 

[Princess Of Peace]

If I had burka I would have put it on when I saw "Lucy" coming.
But seriously, I think for a religion to segregate women and make them cover completely is sexist crap designed by lustful men who think women will be their sex slaves in the next life. They can not comprehend that will be no need for gender in the next life.
When they rape and pillage they are only following their master.

islam doesn't "make" women do anything, its a choice. Whats wrong with God asking men and women to dress modestly?
"O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (33:59)

what makes you think that for women to dress modestly was something designed by "lustfull men"? i would have thought that these "lustfull men" would want the opposite.

your mentioning of women being sex slaves doesn't really register with me. i'm not exactly sure what you're even getting at. what does that have to do with the religion, i've never heard such a thing mentioned in the Qur'an.

btw, who is this "master" that told these men to rape women?
if you are reffering to Allah/God, then you are mistaken.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

If we do that... what are we supposed to say of Christian extremists? Do we take away Christian rights when they go blow up abortion clinics? I dont think so.

I DO think so. Let's say we have a particular church, for an example, let's say Fred Phelps' church, who as a group decide to start bombing abortion clinics. . . you absolutely take away all those people's rights, including their right to freedom.

B.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I seriously think that majority of Muslims, either native born or immigrants, are generally peaceful. I don't doubt that. Non-Muslims should respect their religion. I couldn't care less if they worship their god and devoutly follow their religion, because I don't have any problem with that.

I do have problem with them mixing their religion with their politics and social problems. If some of those immigrants say crap like Islam being the only law that they would follow, then why should we accept them?.

Those gang-rapists I had mentioned dragged religion into it, calling the Australian laws and Australians as racists. When did religion ever became a race or ethnic? Their bringing up religion into this and their refusal to recognise Australian law came from their own mouths.

I have no sympathy for them if they break the law. And I have no sympathy for them if they dragged their religion into this.

Problem with what is bolded above, is, that Islam does not have the concept of seperation of church and state that we in the West grew up with.

When the only acceptable form of faith is Islam (submission) to God, then how can a devout Muslim tolerate other faith's? I will grant you that people of the book paying the proper jizyah and not building a temple or church higher than the local mosque has been the traditional answer, but what of the other people, such as athiests, hindu's, buddhists, etc. etc. etc. ?

Abrahamic faiths, and especially Islam does not make for good neighbors. When your faith says that you have the only route to heaven and everybody who is different is not going to heaven, then why should you treat those others with dignity and respect? Add into that the concept that a fallen martyr avoids judgment and goes directly to paradise, and it becomes pretty remarkable that we don't have more people blowing themselves up in an effort to send as many enemies of the religion to hell while punching his own direct ticket to paradise.

I would tend to agree with you if it was possible for Muslims at large to practice their faith without bothering others, just as I am tolerant of many other behaviors and thought processes I disagree with, but the reality is, that there are only two types of lands in this world, House of Islam, and House of War, and until folks stop taking the Q'uran, Bible, Torah, etc. etc. etc. literally, then I am gonna keep my eye on folks who believe. . .

B.

 

[lilithu]

I DO think so. Let's say we have a particular church, for an example, let's say Fred Phelps' church, who as a group decide to start bombing abortion clinics. . . you absolutely take away all those people's rights, including their right to freedom.

B.

If they bomb clinics, yes.
If they encourage others to bomb clinics, yes.

But if they simply rant and rave about how immoral abortion is and how everyone involved is going to hell then we must let them do so, albeit at a distance where they cannot harass women going into said clinics. There can be no "pre-emptive" taking away of rights on the belief that they might do something. (Same thing with wars. :sarcastic)

 

[lilithu]

Problem with what is bolded above, is, that Islam does not have the concept of seperation of church and state that we in the West grew up with.

The West meaning the U.S., right? Since much of Western Europe and (I just learned) Canada does not have separation of church and state. It seems to have remained a surprisingly novel concept.

When the only acceptable form of faith is Islam (submission) to God, then how can a devout Muslim tolerate other faith's?

The same way that devout Jews and Christians tolerate other faiths. All three religions say "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." and all three religions have had adherents who cannot tolerate others and adherents who tolerate others quite well.

We have Christians who claim that Katrina and even 9/11 was God punishing us for being too tolerant of "sinners." Yet we also have Christians who say that "God is love" and try to express their faith by living out this ideal. There are Muslims who believe that one must adhere to Islam. And there are Muslims who believe that God will judge everyone based on how well they followed their own conscience. It's all in the interpretation.

And you have in this forum Muslims who are living proof that they can get along fine with non-Muslims. Day in and day out they interact here with respect and friendship. No one can say that the Muslim community on RF has been any worse, as a whole, than any other religious group. So how can you continue to doubt that it is possible to be a devout Muslim and tolerate other faiths?

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

And you have in this forum Muslims who are living proof that they can get along fine with non-Muslims. Day in and day out they interact here with respect and friendship. No one can say that the Muslim community on RF has been any worse, as a whole, than any other religious group. So how can you continue to doubt that it is possible to be a devout Muslim and tolerate other faiths?

Thank you. That really touched me that you would notice it, and make mention of it. I sincerely thank you for saying as much, even though I assume it was not your immediate intention to defend us, moreso than you were making an observation. Either way, I thank you for it.

 

[YmirGF]

The West meaning the U.S., right? Since much of Western Europe and (I just learned) Canada does not have separation of church and state. It seems to have remained a surprisingly novel concept.

As a Canadian, Lilithu, I dispute the assertion that "Canada does not have separation of church and state."

It is true that legal documents contain references to "god" and various "state functions" make reference to "god", but when it comes to day to day business "god" is simply not part of the equation. I am not aware of ANY particular religion that hold sway over the political process we have up here. Granted I've only lived here for half a century, so I might have missed something. Do you care to elaborate on this uncharacteristic over-generalization?

 

[lilithu]

As a Canadian, Lilithu, I dispute the assertion that "Canada does not have separation of church and state."

It is true that legal documents contain references to "god" and various "state functions" make reference to "god", but when it comes to day to day business "god" is simply not part of the equation. I am not aware of ANY particular religion that hold sway over the political process we have up here. Granted I've only lived here for half a century, so I might have missed something. Do you care to elaborate on this uncharacteristic over-generalization?

Simple, as was pointed out to me recently, Canada's constitution is modeled on Britain's, and you have an ESTABLISHED church.

The U.S. has the separation of church and state. We don't necessarily have the separation between religion and politics.

In Western Europe otoh (and I assume Canada is the same) religion does not enter into your politics, but you do not have the principle of the separation of church and state. It is not in your Constitution.

 

[YmirGF]

Simple, as was pointed out to me recently, Canada's constitution is modeled on Britain's, and you have an ESTABLISHED church.

The U.S. has the separation of church and state. We don't necessarily have the separation between religion and politics.

In Western Europe otoh (and I assume Canada is the same) religion does not enter into your politics, but you do not have the principle of the separation of church and state. It is not in your Constitution.

Technically, I suppose, Lilithu, but in reality it means absolutely nothing in practice. Honest. Exactly which church is the "established" church, in your mind? I have to admit I am a bit baffled over you assertion. In Canada, no church is recognized above any other (or Mosque or Temple or Tabernacle etc) so the premise is a tad thin. Even if it is "on the books" it means absolutely nothing in the day to day business of running the country, say unlike in Iran where the religous leaders HOLD direct and complete power. The government in Iran moves in the direction the religious leaders order. In Canada, religious leaders may well be consulted, as in Amerika, but they have no direct power over the government to change policy.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

The West meaning the U.S., right? Since much of Western Europe and (I just learned) Canada does not have separation of church and state. It seems to have remained a surprisingly novel concept.


The same way that devout Jews and Christians tolerate other faiths. All three religions say "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." and all three religions have had adherents who cannot tolerate others and adherents who tolerate others quite well.

We have Christians who claim that Katrina and even 9/11 was God punishing us for being too tolerant of "sinners." Yet we also have Christians who say that "God is love" and try to express their faith by living out this ideal. There are Muslims who believe that one must adhere to Islam. And there are Muslims who believe that God will judge everyone based on how well they followed their own conscience. It's all in the interpretation.

And you have in this forum Muslims who are living proof that they can get along fine with non-Muslims. Day in and day out they interact here with respect and friendship. No one can say that the Muslim community on RF has been any worse, as a whole, than any other religious group. So how can you continue to doubt that it is possible to be a devout Muslim and tolerate other faiths?[/quote]

In the same way that I doubt that devout Christians can be tolerant of other faiths. If a person is taking their religious texts literally, then they cannot be tolerant of other faiths and be true to their own. Read Deuteronomy chapter 13. The whole chapter is about murdering anyone who does not believe in Yah-weh. Somebody who takes that literally cannot be a good neighbor to a person who doesn't beleive as they do.

The Q'uran has many similar passages, as does the Hadith re: leaving the faith, or believing in other gods, but I am not as familiar with the locations in those writings to direct you to the passages. Everyone is familiar with the Verse of the Sword, of course, but I just read one recently re: the fact that having other gods was the worse sin you could commit and you should be killed for it.

Anyone who beleives these things, and acts upon them, CANNOT be tolerant of other faiths. You simply cannot hold the belief that a person who doesn't beleive as you do should be stoned to death, and at the same time be tolerant of that person's beleifs. They are mutually exclusive positions.

B.

 

[Booko]

In the same way that I doubt that devout Christians can be tolerant of other faiths. If a person is taking their religious texts literally, then they cannot be tolerant of other faiths and be true to their own.

You seem to be equating "devout" with a necessity for literal readings of texts shorn from their historical context (while conveniently ignoring passages demanding compassion, of course).

I'm not sure that use of "devout" is justified.

Certainly anyone who is "devout" in my religion has read about the violence and oppression that have been caused by too literal readings of religious texts, some of which you point out in the part of your post I did not quote.

 

[storm2020]

I think the hijab should have its restrictions where necessary. For example witness testemony in court as people such as jurors use the facial expressions to judge people's accounts and credibility. I also think it should be restricted in areas of security. Unfortunately for humans the face is an important feature in indentification and communication and i think that if people such as a judge residing in their court feel that a witness wearing one will affect the jurors perception of their testimony then why should religion take precendence over justice?

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

I agree Booko. Also some rather odd assertions are being made about the nature of what a muslim is to think or do (if anything) about a person not believing in Allah. I have been muslim for going on 12 years, and have never read in Quran, hadith, nor shariah that once we find out somebody believes differently we should kill them. We can't just go around killing people, we don't want to, we aren't instructed to, and I don't know when thats gonna sink in.

 

[Booko]

I agree Booko. Also some rather odd assertions are being made about the nature of what a muslim is to think or do (if anything) about a person not believing in Allah. I have been muslim for going on 12 years, and have never read in Quran, hadith, nor shariah that once we find out somebody believes differently we should kill them. We can't just go around killing people, we don't want to, we aren't instructed to, and I don't know when thats gonna sink in.

Yes, I've been reading the same screeds for nearly 20 years now, some of them the same cut & paste jobs from when all online was local, for goodness' sake.

But I've never met a Muslim who ever expressed such an opinion, and the Qu'ran doesn't say so, so I give that stuff no credence.

Even when people talk about shar'ia there seems to be not a lot of understanding that shar'ia isn't a monolithic code of laws that everyone agrees to in detail. There's a lot of diverse opinion about how to apply the ordinances, from what I've seen.

Unfortunately, when most Westerners hear the term shar'ia, they think of a few loud mouthed guys in the UK and a few people bent on violence and they think that's representative.

Well, it's about as representative as Pat Robertson and Dobson are of Christianity generally. Which is...not very.

 

[lilithu]

Technically, I suppose, Lilithu, but in reality it means absolutely nothing in practice. Honest. Exactly which church is the "established" church, in your mind? I have to admit I am a bit baffled over you assertion. In Canada, no church is recognized above any other (or Mosque or Temple or Tabernacle etc) so the premise is a tad thin. Even if it is "on the books" it means absolutely nothing in the day to day business of running the country, say unlike in Iran where the religous leaders HOLD direct and complete power. The government in Iran moves in the direction the religious leaders order. In Canada, religious leaders may well be consulted, as in Amerika, but they have no direct power over the government to change policy.

I wasn't calling Kanada a theocracy. :areyoucra Honestly, you are making a much bigger deal about this than I ever intended. I was simply surprised to be recently informed that your Constitution does not guarantee the separation of Church and State.

I'm well aware of the fact that in practice, as in large parts of Western Europe, religion is of little consequence to public policy and if anything there is hostility/apathy towards it. But for us in the U.S., the the separation of Church and State is supposed to work both ways. It protects govt from undue religious influence. AND it also protects religion from governmental interference. You say religious leaders in Canada can't influence policy. Fine. But can the Canadian govt choose to ban a religion if they don't like it? (Remember what this thread was originally about?)

 

[YmirGF]

But can the Canadian govt choose to ban a religion if they don't like it?

Probably not. The simple fact is Canadians would be so freaked out that we might have someone think badly of us that they would run screaming in the opposite direction of any such proposal.

However, if a majority government decided it wanted to amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then, in theory, they could draft something into legislation and make it part of the Charter. Frankly, I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Otoh, in some countries there already exists various bans on religious expression. From what I recall, Saudi Arabia has a pretty dismal track record of tolerance for other religions within its borders.