One final attempt, but you really don't seem to be interested in a serious discussion:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kissaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abraham
When Islamists are spreading the Islam violently into neighbouring countries I see that as proof of the missionary element of Islam.
You see it as proof of an agressive policy.
In the end the result is the same: Submission of all to the Sharia, so your argumentation is really about semantics.
|
Ok, so using your logic, I might argue that the Indian wars wasn't about territory but about spreading Christianity throughout America. Semantics, indeed. |
Please don't use my logic, I feel you somehow misuse it..
The Indian wars were no Christian wars, sanctionned by a Church to spread Christianity, but a power struggle about land. Christianity had nothing to do with it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kissaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abraham
I will spell out the missionary element in Salafi jihad: Islam is the spirit of complete submission to Allah and Sharia in all spheres of life to form an 'umma' (a Muslim community). The 'dawa' (call to Islam) frees mankind from servitude to other men and delivers men from manmade laws, value systems like democracy and traditions.
'Dawa', call to Islam, to form an 'umma' (Muslim community).
It can hardly be more missionary, can it?
|
In countries governed by a religious caste, the laws are naturally going to be those of the religion. Hence, whereas in the strictly religious sense only the Muslims need mind the Sharia, non-Muslims have to abide by it too, because it's national law. |
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head and here we fully agree. I guess you know the inferior position of women and non-Muslims under Sharia. You probably also know about the 'rights' of 'infidels' under Sharia.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kissaki
They are ... allowed to do as they please, so long as it doesn't conflict with the law - which happens to be the Sharia.
|
and which covers all aspects of life. That's why KLM stewardesses have to wear feals when they leave the airplanes in Jeddah or Tehran and are not allowed to look men in the face. That's why an Imam complains with the Mayor of Amsterdam when he sees two gays walking hand in hand in the Oosterpark in Amsterdam and asks for a small Caliphate in Amsterdam!Completely backwarded and not my cup of tea...
So in the end non-Muslims are not allowed to do as they please.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kissaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abraham
The real point is that fundamental Islam doesn't accept non-Islamic states, with non Islamic governments holding non-Islamic power and making non-Islamic rules.
|
Now you're talking about fundamental Islam. I've been addressing general Islam. |
I am indeed talking about general or fundamentalistic Islam. If there is a difference, please point it out, because I suddenly feel pretty ignorant missing some major distinctions in Islam.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kissaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abraham
Islam clearly states that the Sharia is superior to and overrules any national legal system and in Holland our legal system is regulary addressed as "the rule of the suppressors" by Muslim Dutchmen from Arab origine (sorry I don't have the Arab word right now).
That's why Islam is having great difficulties being a minority religion in a secular state.
|
What can I say? Our experiences differ. |
Well, I just keep my eyes open.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kissaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abraham
That's also why Islam knows a clear difference, or antithesis in this world between 'dar al-Islam' (the land or nation of Islam) and 'dar al-kufr' (the land or nation of infidels) where ever the borderline is there are two 'subversions' of 'dar al-kufr', the 'dar al-suhl' (the land or nation of the treaty) when there is a temporary break in fighting and the 'dar al-harb' (the land or nation of conflict).
It's all pretty black and white for fundamental Islam. That's why president Ahmadinejad was strictly adhering to fundamental and political Islam.
|
It's all pretty black and white for fundamental anything. Again I must reiterate that I am not defending the fundamentalists, but Islam on a general basis. |
A poor defense. Again I must ask for the difference...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kissaki
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abraham
I read that you call a country with a Christian majority a Christian counrtry compared to a country with a Muslim majority a Muslim country.
You are making a mistake with such a comparison. Christianity almost everywhere (apart from for instance Greece) knows the division between State and Church. America is a secular state, with equal rights for any religion, whether or not the majority of Americans is Christian. Traditional and cultural habits like saying "God bless America" and swearing an oath on the Bible are not proof of America being a Christian nation, but proof of its Christian heritage.
|
There is no seperation of Church and state in Norway, but we still have religious freedom. As for the US, there are many laws that are the direct result of religion (most of them sleeping, thankfully). Until the '60s, some states forbade the teaching of evolutionary theory, and certain other Christian curiosities could be seen in laws here and there such as no dancing, no card-playing, no pre-marital sex etc. To this day, oral and anal sex remain criminal offenses in certain states, though like I said, today these are "sleeping" laws. Also, the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the '50s demonstrates that separation of Church and state is like Communism - looks great on paper, but doesn't quite work as it's supposed to in practice. Sure, there is religious freedom, but America is very much a Christian nation. |
If you think that those rules constitute a Christian legal system comparable to the Sharia you are clearle daydreaming. And you acknowledge that those rules are "sleeping". Sharia is not...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kissaki
Quote:
|
="Abraham"]Such equal treatment of religions does not exist in Muslim countries, because - again - there is a strong political (=power) component in fundamental Islam. That's why there are many discriminatory rules against other religions in Muslim countries, even in countries like Indonesia and Turkey...
|
Here you are using a very broad brush indeed to pain all Muslim countries as fundamentalist. In many countries where the government itself is Muslim, yes, fundamentalist laws may apply. But there are also countries - like Iraq - which has a secular government, and consequently is quite liberal in religious matters. Furthermore, I am not aware of any laws in either Indonesia or Turkey which is particularly discriminatory against other religions. There are probably little bits here and there, but not more discriminatory than our laws to the Muslims here. |
Nonsense, Kissaki.
I'm using a very broad brush allright. The brush of Judeo-Christian Civilisation, which brought us - and went through - the Renaissance and the Enlightment and led to the prescious separation of State and Church that you clearly fail to distinguish from Sharia.
We are now facing a religion of which 90% of the followers are having Dark Age convictions, and I am afraid the number is growing...
They will quickly have to adapt their religion to modern society, like some are desperately trying to do, or either they will get irrelevant with their backward thoughts about infidels, women, Jews, homosexuals you name it... or our Western society will become irrelevant.
Our basic human freedoms are not a given but have to be defended every now and then. This is one of those moments.