Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?

[Life in Color]

The point is that it is wrong, but the wrongness should be understood in its own context so as to better criticize it. The 'how' can then follow from the 'why.' To be axiomatic is to be ineffective without understanding either Western Liberal tradition or the Muslim one.

Otherwise you are just an English student correcting the grammar of an incorrect sentence written in Mandarin Chinese.

^ This.

[Beorning]

Again, why.  What is the thing about that that is good?

Okay, let me ask you this: what is the good thing about you having the right to vote? Maybe we should discuss it. Maybe the early Victorians were right in their idea that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?

I mean, if we declare the ethical value of freedom of religion is something relative, then what about the ethical value of women's right? Or non-white people right? Or LGBT right?

Come on. There are limits to moral relativity...

There is a problem though about double standards,
George W. Bush is not being charged as a war Criminal for all the innocent lives that were taken in wars,

Did he not violate Human rights there? Or Barrack Obama for that reason?

Well, if you ask me, GWB *should* be tried for war crimes, yes. If we lived in a just world, he would be.

Who decides what should be Applied universally?, If A minority does not like a law, suddenly its okay to Oppress their Opinion? because Majority thinks its right?

You do realize you could use this reasoning to defend just any kind of evil happening in the world, right?

Let me Godwin here for a moment: Nazi Germany. According to your reasoning, we can't say that the Nazi racial policits were wrong. According to your thinking, Hitler wasn't evil... he just held a differing opinion on what constitutes right or wrong. And we shouldn't judge him! All hail the minority's opinion!

I mean... the right of racially inferior people to live and / or be free. It's such a Western Liberal concept!  Who says that everyone has to share it? 

The point is that it is wrong, but the wrongness should be understood in its own context so as to better criticize it. The 'how' can then follow from the 'why.' To be axiomatic is to be ineffective without understanding either Western Liberal tradition or the Muslim one.

Otherwise you are just an English student correcting the grammar of an incorrect sentence written in Mandarin Chinese.

Well, actually, Kythia is actually questioning whether the freedom of religion *is* good or not. So does DarkAngel - that's the impression I get, at least.

^ This.

So, what's your opinion as a Muslim? Is it okay to jail people for admitting to being atheists?

[Vergil Tanner]

Again, why.  What is the thing about that that is good? 

Now you're being deliberately obtrusive, but here's your answer:

It is good because a society that oppresses new ideas, thoughts and individual opinions for no other reason than "We disagree" is demonstrably worse off than societies that allow and encourage the free exchange of ideas and opinions; one just has to look at history to see that. Every human has the right to hold an opinion without fear of being prosecuted simply for holding a dissenting idea. It also encourages people in that society to take responsibility and pride in their society, since they feel more involved and more comfortable in that environment. It fosters cooperation, happiness and progress, all of which would be stifled if new ideas were punished. This is so blindingly obvious, I don't know what your issue with it is. Somewhat ironically, this conversation wouldn't be happening without freedom of speech. So there you go.

There is a problem though about double standards,
George W. Bush is not being charged as a war Criminal for all the innocent lives that were taken in wars,

Did he not violate Human rights there? Or Barrack Obama for that reason?

That is....entirely off topic, and I have no idea why you brought it up. This is a conversation about freedom of speech, and you derail into "George Bush should be tried as a war criminal?" What? Also, no he shouldn't. He's a horrible little man, but technically he didn't break (or, there's not enough evidence that he did) any "rules of war." Did he start a war? Arguably, yes. Did he commit any crimes? Technically, no. Can we get back on topic now please?

Who decides what should be Applied universally?, If A minority does not like a law, suddenly its okay to Oppress their Opinion? because Majority thinks its right?

No. Again, strawman. Please stop doing that.
A law should be passed if it is fair to all individuals, and that is (generally) how it's done. Also, nobody is oppressing their opinion. In a Western society, at least, they're allowed to disagree with the law and nobody prosecutes them WITH the law for holding that opinion. And you know what? If they disagree with that law, there are avenues for them to try to change it. They can peacefully protest, sign petitions, VOTE for people who agree with them and generally kick up a fuss. Plus, there are laws in place that protect the minority from oppression by the majority. True, they don't always work, but they work more often than not. But the key point here is this: They are ALLOWED to disagree. In countries where they're not, their freedom of expression is being oppressed and that is NOT the same thing as a minority not liking a law.


The Universal Human Rights, according to the UN:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Do you disagree with anything in there? Or does that look fair to you?

[Kythia]

Okay, let me ask you this: what is the good thing about you having the right to vote? Maybe we should discuss it. Maybe the early Victorians were right in their idea that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?

I mean, if we declare the ethical value of freedom of religion is something relative, then what about the ethical value of women's right? Or non-white people right? Or LGBT right?

Yup.  Those are debates we could have.  We can if you want.  I know why I think they're right, certainly.  What I don't know, and what you don't seem to be able to articulate, is why you think the freedom to express your religious belief is right.

[Beorning]

Yup.  Those are debates we could have.  We can if you want.  I know why I think they're right, certainly.  What I don't know, and what you don't seem to be able to articulate, is why you think the freedom to express your religious belief is right.

Maybe because I'm too stupid, admittedly 

Overall, though, I do believe that some things are so obviously right that we shouldn't be debating them. I mean, if someone started a thread about the plague of rapes in India, I wouldn't argue whether rapes *are* a bad thing, or if it's just a Western concept...

[Sabre]

Well, actually, Kythia is actually questioning whether the freedom of religion *is* good or not. So does DarkAngel - that's the impression I get, at least.

Is that really so? Because it seems she's asking why it is supposed that it is good.

It is good, but there is a particularly Western history behind why it became good. If that is not understood, then how can it be translated into a separate tradition? We are then left with 'It is good because we say it is.'

And that has been disastrous in the past century with the rise of anti-colonial and anti-imperial political ideologies. It's why Boko Haram is called Boko Haram, and why Western medical aid is suspect in Waziristan.

[Life in Color]

So, what's your opinion as a Muslim? Is it okay to jail people for admitting to being atheists?

I think it was wrong, but it was predictable and so I'm not totally upset by it.

Muslims, or not, as someone academically studying the region, I don't think it's odd at all.

But, I have the unique blessing to be an American Muslim with the freedom to step back and be academic about it.

Putting the academics aside (kind of), I think that it's unfortunate the region hasn't come "up to speed", I guess, but the more Western liberalism tries to push into the region, the more and more it will cling to the old traditions.

It will change on its own or it won't.

I do think it's positive that the incident we're talking about ended in a jail sentence and not something worse. It indicates growth.

[DarkAngel111]

The problem here is really This

You go into a country tell people to do things this way, Despite what they think or believe?
Why?. They were born in their own country, Their country their Laws, Leave them alone?.

The problem really is that Only now west is admitting that it is okay to be LGBT. But till they did not approve of it, it was the universal law. And everyone is expected to live with that. Now that their opinion has changed everyone should change their opinion?.

Essentially that is like saying If you don't do what I am telling you to do you are screwed we can come fuck you up because we can do that.

Muslim women aren't allowed to wear a Burka in France?. Why not? because it's not allowed in OUR country they say.

So if a muslim country is telling you women SHOULD wear one in a Muslim country. This is some how oppressing people's Freedom?


Onto the Topic of Nazis. They waged a war in other countries they waged a war. Not every muslim who asks to wear a burka or practice his religion does that.

The laws of Human rights don't apply when suddenly you are in war and kill innocents, but if in the same state of war, a few people are executed who are NOT responsible those people are labelled terrorists? ( i am not talking about the explosions in public places here,but more in a sense that Iran executed americans claiming they were CIA Agents).

My problem starts and ends at one simple Question, Who is deciding what is right? and what is wrong?. And if they already have the power to decide for all of humanity, Are they really the BEST of us? do they not have blemishes on their Own characters?

[Kythia]

Maybe because I'm too stupid, admittedly 

Overall, though, I do believe that some things are so obviously right that we shouldn't be debating them. I mean, if someone started a thread about the plague of rapes in India, I wouldn't argue whether rapes *are* a bad thing, or if it's just a Western concept...

I wouldn't say you're stupid, for whatever token amount the passing comment of an almost stranger is.  I do think you haven't thought about this particular issue, certainly, but that's nowhere near my own personal definition of stupid.

There are a specific set of histories behind "religious freedom is good".  Those histories do not hold elsewhere.  What we need to show is the underlying principle behind those culturally specific histories, not simply state them as fact.

[DarkAngel111]

Islam never discriminated against Color of skin of people. The Faith always believed Everyone has Equal Rights. I didn't see half of the Islamic states waging a war against british or US and call them backwards or terrorists because they enslaved and Differentiated against Blacks.

Why then the same liberty is not given to the Muslim Culture? Is the West Above us ?

[Valthazar]

Why?. They were born in their own country, Their country their Laws, Leave them alone?.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying.  Yet at the same time, it's ironic that this is the same argument the far-right European parties use when criticizing the rigid and heavily religious attitudes of many Muslims living in the West.

[Vergil Tanner]

Yup.  Those are debates we could have.  We can if you want.  I know why I think they're right, certainly.  What I don't know, and what you don't seem to be able to articulate, is why you think the freedom to express your religious belief is right.

I've expressed some reasons why freedom of speech is right, but you seem content to ignore it. The simple fact of the matter is that societies that allow freedom of speech are better off than those that don't. Why are you so intent on trying to get us to justify why we think that imprisoning people who disagree is a bad thing?

Maybe because I'm too stupid, admittedly 

I don't think it's because you're stupid; oftentimes, if somebody asks you a blindingly obvious question, people struggle to justify it because to them it is so mind numbingly obvious that you're not sure how to phrase it because you've never had to do it before. Or something like that.

Is that really so? Because it seems she's asking why it is supposed that it is good.

It is good, but there is a particularly Western history behind why it became good. If that is not understood, then how can it be translated into a separate tradition? We are then left with 'It is good because we say it is.'

And that has been disastrous in the past century with the rise of anti-colonial and anti-imperial political ideologies. It's why Boko Haram is called Boko Haram, and why Western medical aid is suspect in Waziristan.

Doesn't seem that way to me; it seems that she's just saying "You think it's good, but WHY is it good?" with no context as to why she's asking. I agree that context is important, but that isn't what she's asking. Or if it is, she's not making that clear.

You go into a country tell people to do things this way, Despite what they think or believe?
Why?. They were born in their own country, Their country their Laws, Leave them alone?.

I agree...until they start violating human rights. Would you be saying the same thing if they were executing people who disagreed with the government? "Their country, their laws" sounds a bit too close to moral relativism for me. If they had a law that stated that a husband could beat his wife if he wanted to, would you still be saying this?

The problem really is that Only now west is admitting that it is okay to be LGBT. But till they did not approve of it, it was the universal law. And everyone is expected to live with that. Now that their opinion has changed everyone should change their opinion?.

I personally think that you're muddying the issue here; they shouldn't change their laws on the matter because the west did it. They should change their laws because laws against LGBT individuals are immoral and oppressive.

Essentially that is like saying If you don't do what I am telling you to do you are screwed we can come fuck you up because we can do that.

No it isn't. Are we threatening to come wage war on them unless they do shit our way? No.

Muslim women aren't allowed to wear a Burka in France?. Why not? because it's not allowed in OUR country they say.

As I understand it, that is more because there are laws in France against covering your face in public, or in court when giving testimony. Nothing to do with Muslims, it's just a law that they have. However, I do disagree with the "no face covering in public" thing. What if it's cold and I want to wear a scarf? Of course, my understanding of that issue is vague at best, so I won't comment on that.

So if a muslim country is telling you women SHOULD wear one in a Muslim country. This is some how oppressing people's Freedom?

Yes. Because if they don't have that religion, why should they follow that religions laws that serve no other purpose than that religions beliefs?

Onto the Topic of Nazis. They waged a war in other countries they waged a war. Not every muslim who asks to wear a burka or practice his religion does that.

You are entirely missing the point of his analogy and erecting yet another strawman.

The laws of Human rights don't apply when suddenly you are in war and kill innocents, but if in the same state of war, a few people are executed who are NOT responsible those people are labelled terrorists?

Actually, they do.

My problem starts and ends at one simple Question, Who is deciding what is right? and what is wrong?. And if they already have the power to decide for all of humanity, Are they really the BEST of us? do they not have blemishes on their Own characters?

Irrelevant, I'm afraid. With thinking like that, nobody ever gets to decide anything. I gave you a link to the Human Rights page, is there anything on there that you find objectionable? The simple thing here is that with human rights, they weren't just cooked up over night. There was a LOT of back and forth over what should go in, and these things are things that are dedicated to making sure that everybody is treated equally and has the same protection as everybody else. How in the world could anybody argue that that is a bad thing? It should be blatantly obvious.

Islam never discriminated against Color of skin of people.

No, they just discriminated against people who disagreed with them.

The Faith always believed Everyone has Equal Rights.

Not....quite true, historically and scripturally speaking. But I'll leave that can of worms unopened.

I didn't see half of the Islamic states waging a war against british or US and call them backwards or terrorists because they enslaved and Differentiated against Blacks.

Probably because they A) didn't know it was happening and B) because they were doing the exact same thing at the same time. Of course, to be fair, they didn't JUST enslave blacks. They enslaved whoever they could get their hands on. The West weren't the ONLY places to have slaves, you know.

Why then the same liberty is not given to the Muslim Culture? Is the West Above us ?

No, the west isn't above you. As I've said before in this post, it isn't right because the west says so. It's right because it's a way of making sure that everybody is treated equally.

[Beorning]

It is good, but there is a particularly Western history behind why it became good. If that is not understood, then how can it be translated into a separate tradition? We are then left with 'It is good because we say it is.'

And that has been disastrous in the past century with the rise of anti-colonial and anti-imperial political ideologies. It's why Boko Haram is called Boko Haram, and why Western medical aid is suspect in Waziristan.

I freely admit that I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. As I said, I'm stupid. 

I think it was wrong, but it was predictable and so I'm not totally upset by it.

Muslims, or not, as someone academically studying the region, I don't think it's odd at all.

But, I have the unique blessing to be an American Muslim with the freedom to step back and be academic about it.

Putting the academics aside (kind of), I think that it's unfortunate the region hasn't come "up to speed", I guess, but the more Western liberalism tries to push into the region, the more and more it will cling to the old traditions.

It will change on its own or it won't.

I do think it's positive that the incident we're talking about ended in a jail sentence and not something worse. It indicates growth.

Okay then, let me ask you this: are these kinds of laws inherent to Islam as religion or not? In other words, is jailing atheists something that comes directly from lslam - or just a case of local laws that can be changed with no conflict with religion?

The problem here is really This

You go into a country tell people to do things this way, Despite what they think or believe?
Why?. They were born in their own country, Their country their Laws, Leave them alone?.

So, by that reasoning... would you say "leave them alone" regarding Nazi Germany? I mean, most of what Nazi did was legal... according to their country's laws. Would you defend the Nazis' right to oppress their own citizens?

Islam never discriminated against Color of skin of people. The Faith always believed Everyone has Equal Rights. I didn't see half of the Islamic states waging a war against british or US and call them backwards or terrorists because they enslaved and Differentiated against Blacks.

Why then the same liberty is not given to the Muslim Culture? Is the West Above us ?

The thing is, the West isn't waging war against the Muslim culture. Europe or the US aren't attacking the Islamic countries just because we believe there's injustice happening there. We do criticise... but that's not the same as waging a war.

BTW. If there was still racial-based slavery in the US, Islamic countries would be absolutely justified in voicing their disapproval. Although, by the logic you seem to be presenting, they shouldn't do it - because that would be disrespectful of the US culture...

I wouldn't say you're stupid, for whatever token amount the passing comment of an almost stranger is.  I do think you haven't thought about this particular issue, certainly, but that's nowhere near my own personal definition of stupid.

There are a specific set of histories behind "religious freedom is good".  Those histories do not hold elsewhere.  What we need to show is the underlying principle behind those culturally specific histories, not simply state them as fact.

Note, though, that - regardless of the culturally specific histories you mention - some rights are considered universal. So, we don't really need to delve into European history to be able to say that things like freedom of religion etc. are universal human rights and they hold power everywhere.

[Kythia]

Note, though, that - regardless of the culturally specific histories you mention - some rights are considered universal. So, we don't really need to delve into European history to be able to say that things like freedom of religion etc. are universal human rights and they hold power everywhere.

Not legally, no, you're right.  Egypt is a signatory to various conventions and in a strictly legal understanding of the term "rights" then you're correct, sure.  I have no idea what if anything the ramifications of that fact are/will be.  That does raise other issues of course - which parts of the world do you imagine have the power to force cultural values in to international law?  But, interesting as that is, its a side issue.

If you're not talking about legal definitions, though, then we return to this just being a statement.  This is true because it is.  And the situation is clearly not obvious from inspection as shown by the fact that entire regions of the world have examined the same facts and come to a different conclusion.  They might be wrong, sure, but the situation doesn't have an immediately obvious answer is my point.

And so, if freedom of religion is "right " on an objective level then places that disagree need convincing.   And there's bucket loads of research (links if you want them, shout up) saying that the way misconceptions are addressed isn't shouting "I'm right" over and over again, its engaging with and dispelling the misconceptions.  Which means its essential to engage with the specific cultural milieu which disagrees.

If, however, freedom of religion isn't "right" on an objective level then a good way of discovering that fact would be engaging with people/regions/cultures that disagree.

[DarkAngel111]

No Muslim will protest or make a mess out of a situation, If they were left alone in their own countries.

The question I often find myself asking is this....

I am a Muslim, When I go to the US, I am assumed to be a Terrorist. And checked Rigorously, Watched Vigilantly, In my Own country a Drone strike Kills me for attending a religious school explanation : it was an Extremist we killed.

If I am western Living in my country, two terrorists blow them up outside my house, killing me. they call me Evil and tell me I am not a true Muslim....

Tell me then, Is suddenly Being a Muslim has become a Crime in this world?. Because from the way I see it, it really has become a crime to even tell people I am Muslim. Hasn't this whole war, and fight for rights, Made my life miserable?. Now if I get up and argue about it, Defending my religion means I am siding with the terrorists, not Siding with my Religion makes me a Infidel.

Its funny eh?. So when someone comes into my country to bomb me, I try to fight for it. Because I know the Terrorists are certainly wrong. But If I am fighting for my religion, your so called Universal laws make me a terrorist/Extremist.

I've expressed some reasons why freedom of speech is right, but you seem content to ignore it. The simple fact of the matter is that societies that allow freedom of speech are better off than those that don't. Why are you so intent on trying to get us to justify why we think that imprisoning people who disagree is a bad thing?

I don't think it's because you're stupid; oftentimes, if somebody asks you a blindingly obvious question, people struggle to justify it because to them it is so mind numbingly obvious that you're not sure how to phrase it because you've never had to do it before. Or something like that.


Doesn't seem that way to me; it seems that she's just saying "You think it's good, but WHY is it good?" with no context as to why she's asking. I agree that context is important, but that isn't what she's asking. Or if it is, she's not making that clear.

I agree...until they start violating human rights. Would you be saying the same thing if they were executing people who disagreed with the government? "Their country, their laws" sounds a bit too close to moral relativism for me. If they had a law that stated that a husband could beat his wife if he wanted to, would you still be saying this?

I personally think that you're muddying the issue here; they shouldn't change their laws on the matter because the west did it. They should change their laws because laws against LGBT individuals are immoral and oppressive.

No it isn't. Are we threatening to come wage war on them unless they do shit our way? No.

As I understand it, that is more because there are laws in France against covering your face in public, or in court when giving testimony. Nothing to do with Muslims, it's just a law that they have. However, I do disagree with the "no face covering in public" thing. What if it's cold and I want to wear a scarf? Of course, my understanding of that issue is vague at best, so I won't comment on that.

Yes. Because if they don't have that religion, why should they follow that religions laws that serve no other purpose than that religions beliefs?


You are entirely missing the point of his analogy and erecting yet another strawman.

Actually, they do.


Irrelevant, I'm afraid. With thinking like that, nobody ever gets to decide anything. I gave you a link to the Human Rights page, is there anything on there that you find objectionable? The simple thing here is that with human rights, they weren't just cooked up over night. There was a LOT of back and forth over what should go in, and these things are things that are dedicated to making sure that everybody is treated equally and has the same protection as everybody else. How in the world could anybody argue that that is a bad thing? It should be blatantly obvious.


No, they just discriminated against people who disagreed with them.

Not....quite true, historically and scripturally speaking. But I'll leave that can of worms unopened.

Probably because they A) didn't know it was happening and B) because they were doing the exact same thing at the same time. Of course, to be fair, they didn't JUST enslave blacks. They enslaved whoever they could get their hands on. The West weren't the ONLY places to have slaves, you know.

No, the west isn't above you. As I've said before in this post, it isn't right because the west says so. It's right because it's a way of making sure that everybody is treated equally.

Let's start with your First comment.
USA Did do that, Guantanamo Bay is a Example of that, Every muslim who was suspected of any wrong doing and More than hundreds were Imprisoned because they were not what they were suppose to be. That wasn't wrong? do tell me?.


Your Second Comment, I am saying Everyone changes their laws in their own time. No one has the right to dictate another country what to do, Otherwise why keep all the borders and make armies just make a Humanitarian army and kill or imprison anyone who does not follow. That would at least, make sense when done.


LOL Come on now don't joke. Half the wars going on, are going on because the all mighty USA does not agree with their Policies and their way of living. We are teaching those savages how to live. Is what the motto was. Or atleast the Ground reality was that.


France, now you don't know much about it, but let me tell you, you can wear something to cover your face if its cold but you cannot do Hijjab in public places. So if we cannot do that in Your country, because its your country, and we can't practice our religion, then when you come to Our country, by that same standard you should wear a hijjab and follow our Laws. Otherwise Yyou are promoting double standards.

Now onto the topic of Who decides what, If taking of a life is against human rights, then anyone innocent killed in a war should be trialed, How is it that America is above that law when it comes to war crime. You get away by saying Its not a perfect world. All justice is exacted on us, nothing on the west....


Oh trust me the Religion of islam says, "Your Religion onto you and My Religion onto Me." this means if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. :) I don't think in the 1900s there was any kind of slavery in muslims? Not that I am aware of?.

[Valthazar]

France, now you don't know much about it, but let me tell you, you can wear something to cover your face if its cold but you cannot do Hijjab in public places. So if we cannot do that in Your country, because its your country, and we can't practice our religion, then when you come to Our country, by that same standard you should wear a hijjab and follow our Laws. Otherwise Yyou are promoting double standards.

You're using a very narrow example with the hijab in France, which doesn't factor in the degree to which Islam has firmly entrenched (and in some ways transformed) segments of Western communities.  For example, the presence of "no go zones" in European cities - filled with Muslims who have transformed these areas into hubs for fundamentalism.  If you are criticizing the West in this case, it's only fair to criticize Islam for doing the same in the West.

[DarkAngel111]

And who started this first? answer that and you will have answer to your question?.

[Kythia]

For example, the presence of "no go zones" in European cities

Mildly off topic from this off topic conversation, but did you hear all of that about Birmingham (UK, not Alabama) being a no-go area where non-Muslims don't go?  h/t to Louise for that one, check the Twitter tag #foxnewsfacts for some pretty funny responses.

[Valthazar]

Mildly off topic from this off topic conversation, but did you hear all of that about Birmingham (UK, not Alabama) being a no-go area where non-Muslims don't go?  h/t to Louise for that one, check the Twitter tag #foxnewsfacts for some pretty funny responses.

That isn't what I was referring to, I was referring to the official classification by the French.  This article provides a nice summary of the current situation.  The French police themselves have classified "751 Sensitive Urban Zones" (which is the formal term for "no go" zones).

Here's the official listing of these no-go zones:
http://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Atlas/ZUS/

[Kythia]

That isn't what I was referring to, I was referring to the official classification by the French.  This article provides a nice summary of the current situation.  The French police themselves have classified "751 Sensitive Urban Zones" (which is the formal term for "no go" zones).

Here's the official listing of these no-go zones:
http://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Atlas/ZUS/

No, I realise it wasn't what you were referring to.  Hence mentioning that I was off topic.

[Avis habilis]

Here's the official listing of these no-go zones:
http://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Atlas/ZUS/

Which weren't classified by the police, have nothing to do with the inhabitants' religion, & don't represent areas where non-Muslims fear to tread. They're more like "in need of urban renewal" areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_urban_zone
http://www.onzus.fr/presentation/les-quartiers-de-la-politique-de-la-ville
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_urbaine_sensible

Referring to them as "Muslim only zones" is a flat out anti-Islamic propaganda lie.

[Vergil Tanner]

No Muslim will protest or make a mess out of a situation, If they were left alone in their own countries.

I'm not sure how you can make that assertion with anything even approaching certainty. How do you know?

I am a Muslim, When I go to the US, I am assumed to be a Terrorist. And checked Rigorously, Watched Vigilantly,

Not by most people, actually. Sure, there are the racist fuckwits who do that, but they're not checking you because you're Muslim, they're checking you because they've had terrorist attacks over there, and they want to make sure that they aren't letting in anybody dangerous...which is just frikkin sensible. The USA do that to their own citizens as well, so I'm not sure where this is coming from.

In my Own country a Drone strike Kills me for attending a religious school explanation : it was an Extremist we killed.

Again....no. In fact, if a drone strike DID hit a school in the Middle East and the public heard about it, the chances are that there would be a HUGE backlash against the people who ordered it. There's already a big kerfuffle over drone warfare, so...yeah. Again, not sure where you got THAT.

Tell me then, Is suddenly Being a Muslim has become a Crime in this world?. Because from the way I see it, it really has become a crime to even tell people I am Muslim.

No, it isn't, and even though some people have these preconceived notions, in my experience most people are just kind of "eh, whatever." when you talk about religion in particular. I might live in a particularly apathetic area, but that's my experience. Being a Muslim hasn't become a crime; you can't be punished for being a Muslim, and yes, some people will judge you for it, but that is - sadly - the nature of humanity in that there are always people seeking to make an out group. By and large, most people that I know really wouldn't give two flying fucks what religion you are so long as you're a cool person.

Hasn't this whole war, and fight for rights, Made my life miserable?. Now if I get up and argue about it, Defending my religion means I am siding with the terrorists, not Siding with my Religion makes me a Infidel.

Well...I'm sorry if that's your experience. I can only say what my position is on it, and personally, I don't have any problems with Muslims. Islam? Yeah, I have a few issues with Islam itself, but I have NO issues with the average day to day Muslim. In my head, at least, they're entirely separate entities when it comes to dealing with them. In my experience, there are very few people I know or have met who would engage in such "with us or against us" mentality. But then, I live in a different area. *shrug*

But If I am fighting for my religion, your so called Universal laws make me a terrorist/Extremist.

Ummm...except they don't. Unless you're trying to enslave people and suppress their freedom of speech, in which case, yes, you're a criminal.

Let's start with your First comment.
USA Did do that, Guantanamo Bay is a Example of that, Every muslim who was suspected of any wrong doing and More than hundreds were Imprisoned because they were not what they were suppose to be. That wasn't wrong? do tell me?.

That wasn't JUST Muslims, and it wasn't necessarily BECAUSE they were Muslims, but because they were suspects. Were there racist reasons for it? Probably. But whatever. It WAS wrong, and I don't see how anything I've said here could possibly suggest that I think otherwise. If this is in reference to George Bush not breaking any laws, then to the best of my knowledge there isn't enough evidence that he personally ordered that; if he didn't, then he isn't a criminal. If he did, but there isn't enough evidence, we can't convict. If there IS evidence of him doing that, then I retract that statement and agree that he is a war criminal and should be convicted.

Your Second Comment, I am saying Everyone changes their laws in their own time. No one has the right to dictate another country what to do, Otherwise why keep all the borders and make armies just make a Humanitarian army and kill or imprison anyone who does not follow. That would at least, make sense when done.

Or - OR - we could encourage free thought and talk with the leaders to get them to change their laws without warfare. But as it is, I want to extend those human rights to everybody ASAP, because while we dither, there ARE people suffering unjustly.

LOL Come on now don't joke. Half the wars going on, are going on because the all mighty USA does not agree with their Policies and their way of living. We are teaching those savages how to live. Is what the motto was. Or atleast the Ground reality was that.

Whilst I disagree with American Foreign Policy (UK Citizen speaking here), that is a gross over simplification of what's going on. Also, I highly doubt that was the attitude of the boots on the ground, even if it was the attitude of the people on top.

France, now you don't know much about it, but let me tell you, you can wear something to cover your face if its cold but you cannot do Hijjab in public places. So if we cannot do that in Your country, because its your country, and we can't practice our religion, then when you come to Our country, by that same standard you should wear a hijjab and follow our Laws. Otherwise Yyou are promoting double standards.

I've done a quick google on it, and whilst I'm not an expert, my quick skim shows that it ISN'T specifically against Muslims. The ban is "on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances. The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. Consequently,full body costumes and Zentais (skin-tight garments covering entire body) were banned. The key argument supporting this proposal is that face-coverings prevent the clear identification of a person, which is both a security risk, and a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication. Veils such as the chador, scarves and other headwear that do not cover the face, are not affected by this law and can be worn. The law applies to all citizens, including men and non-Muslims, who may not cover their face in public except where specifically provided by law (such as motor-bike riders and safety workers) and during established occasional events (such as some carnivals)."

So....yeah, not quite what you think it is. The other thing to note is that this debate is STILL going on. So....yeah, you're kind of misrepresenting the issue here.

Now onto the topic of Who decides what, If taking of a life is against human rights, then anyone innocent killed in a war should be trialed, How is it that America is above that law when it comes to war crime. You get away by saying Its not a perfect world. All justice is exacted on us, nothing on the west....

I don't think America is above it, nor should anybody be allowed to get away with violating human rights. The sticky thing is that it refused to sign things like the Geneva Convention, which means that nobody can punish it on that note because it didn't sign. The fuckwits. See, you're slinging loads of shit at me which...don't actually apply to me.

Oh trust me the Religion of islam says, "Your Religion onto you and My Religion onto Me." this means if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. :)

It also says:
-  "and the men are a degree above them [women]" (2:228)
- "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." (2:223)
- ""...The Prophet said, 'If somebody discards his religion, kill him.' " (Bukhari 52:260)
And ""O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." (Quran 9:73)
- "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah." (Muslim 1:30)
- Bukhari 59: 369 tells the story of a man who was stabbed to death for insulting Mohammed.
- And Islamic law states that "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed."

So....tell me again how Islam encourages equality and freedom.

I don't think in the 1900s there was any kind of slavery in muslims? Not that I am aware of?.

Actually, yes. The Arab/Middle East slave trade was only stamped out for good (hopefully) in the 1960's, about the time the World Muslim Congress FINALLY pledged allegiance to anti-slavery movements. In terms of wide-spread legal abolition, the Muslim Sultinates actually abolished it later than most places, at the end of the 19th century, and only under pressure from people like the USA and the British. So actually...as a whole, Muslim countries are no more or less guilty of the slave trade than the West. Well, recently anyway. The Middle East was using slaves faaaaaar before the West. In fact, the Muslim Barbary Corsairs were raiding European coasts for slaves long before Europe went over and started taking their own. Also, fun fact: Britain was one of the first countries to make transporting and importing slaves illegal. Not keeping them, true, but they got a head start on everybody else. 180....7, I think it was. They didn't outlaw slavery across the Empire and emaciate the slaves until....1834. I think. Yeah, that sounds about right.

[Kythia]

Which weren't classified by the police, have nothing to do with the inhabitants' religion, & don't represent areas where non-Muslims fear to tread. They're more like "in need of urban renewal" areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_urban_zone
http://www.onzus.fr/presentation/les-quartiers-de-la-politique-de-la-ville
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_urbaine_sensible

Referring to them as "Muslim only zones" is a flat out anti-Islamic propaganda lie.

I thought that sounded like nonsense, but wasn't sure enough to claim it.  Thanks for doing the legwork there.

[DarkAngel111]

Which weren't classified by the police, have nothing to do with the inhabitants' religion, & don't represent areas where non-Muslims fear to tread. They're more like "in need of urban renewal" areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_urban_zone
http://www.onzus.fr/presentation/les-quartiers-de-la-politique-de-la-ville
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_urbaine_sensible

Referring to them as "Muslim only zones" is a flat out anti-Islamic propaganda lie.

+1^
And then they wonder why the Muslims don't Believe their words.

[Vergil Tanner]

I'm gonna bow out of the discussion here; I have essays to write and an early morning three hour lecture tomorrow, so I don't have the time to write the long posts that I like to write, haha. I'm gonna go back to silently lurking...at least until I figure out how to "Unwatch" a thread. Seriously, I still get threads that I haven't posted on in months popping up in my "Unread Replies" list. It's slightly frustrating. Heh.

Anywho! Bowing out, for now at least...toodlepip, and you all have a nice evening Or morning. Or lunchtime. Or whatever timezone you're in. See ya!