Election: What Is Your Take...

[carpedm9587]

You suggested I do the equivalent of what I said, but for Islam.

At no point did I suggest you assess the "truth" or "falseness" of Islam by "going to the people." You noted that in Muslim majority countries, the people have a decided preference for Sharia law. You are making an assumption about THIS country on that basis. First, the form of Islam practiced here tends to be far more liberal than the conservative brand practiced in those countries (hence my suggestion that you ask Muslims here what they think), and those countries never had the U.S. constitution or U.S. history. Your fears are, IMO, unsubstantiated and ungrounded.

I always get confused on whether it is two Q's, or Y's. Way to nitpick though.

It's not nitpicking. It's part of my duty as local grammar nazi It's a self-appointed duty I share with CP.

It's allowed in far more than just "persecution, compulsion, or imminent harm". Mohammed allowed it in the case of murdering a man who opposed Mohammed and not only allowed it, but endorsed such activity. Since he is the ultimate standard as far as what a "good Muslim" is supposed to be, then it's pretty important.

The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do".
Sahih Bukhari 4:52:271

Lying* for the sake of a good outcome is also allowed according to Hadith.

He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.
Sahih Bukhari 3:49:857

Remember, the Quranic verse that is often used to justify it only in "persecution" says to not even be friends with non-Muslims unless you are afraid of them. So, either they aren't following Quranic teachings, or your own Muslim friends are afraid of you.

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them.
Surah 3:28

Ibn Kathir on 3:28—Allah said next, (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''

Similar discussions are had in Christianity, Cere, about bible passages that appear to condone lying and discriminate between "lying" and "falsehoods."

Indeed the Christian bible is replete with god-sanctioned actions that today would be considered atrocities and crimes against humanity. Of course, I'm sure I'm going to get a dissertation on why that is different, but then I will also get a similar dissertation if I take your passages to the Islamic leaders here in the U.S. about how those passages are being misapplied by conservative Muslims. It's part of the problem of trying to determine "truth" and "morality" from texts such as the Bible and the Quran.

They were set up by a group of Muslim thugs at an Arab festival. The police went along with it, and those arrested reported police there who talked to them about the kinds of things going on there, like "honor" killings, but were too afraid to do anything about it. The system nearly didn't work with the people in Dearborn doing their best to keep the videos taken by Acts17 Apologetics out of the picture as long as possible. They painted them as hateful bigots who were being disruptive. If you watch the videos of what happened, said claim was far from the truth. The anti-Semitic stuff was being given a free pass there, and these thugs had gotten far more people thrown out, and possibly arrested. If it weren't for the videos, and the fact that they had been warned of such activity beforehand the Acts17 group likely would have not gotten the truth out. If the system had been working as it was supposed to, the arrest wouldn't have happened, because the Muslims who set them up would have been forbidden from coming to the Arab Festival that year. The police were also informed by a third party that a setup was in the works, but the one doing the arrest was unwilling to listen to a fellow police officer. Given everything that happened it sounds like the non-Muslim leaders in Dearborn are a bunch of dummiesDhimmies.

If you really think it would have been different if Muslims were the majority in the USA, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Many people here seem to have a difficult time distinguishing between "you have not made your case" and "I have shown it cannot be that way." "You have not proven X" is not the same as "I have proven not X." My statements are that I believe you are ignoring the context of the United States in forming your fears about a Muslim majority in the U.S. I also think the probability of such a majority is fairly small. Although Muslim growth is, as best I can tell, outpacing Christian growth - the fastest growing "religious" sector is "unaffiliated" or "non-religious." So I find most of your fears unfounded.

As for your Dearborn story, I am not finding anything of concern. That people make choices out of short-term fears or concerns that end up being not legal is not new. It has been done by Christians, to Christians, by Muslims, to Muslims, by atheists, to atheists, and the list goes on. We live in an "anti-Islamic" country right now - where there is a great deal of anti-immigrant and anti-Islam sentiment. Over-reactions are going to happen. In this case, the legal system worked exactly as it was supposed to. No problems as far as I can tell.

I have an anti-Islam sentiment yes, as the teachings are evil. I don't have anything against individual Muslims however. Given your distortions, and other positions I don't really care what you think is "becoming" or not.

*In another version it says a rationalizes things by saying that type of lie isn't really a lie.

I find no more evil in Islam than I find in Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Judaism, or any other mainstream religion. I am not impressed by one religion calling another "evil," given that each one claims to have "the truth" and "the right path to god," so they are necessarily going to see other faiths as compromised to one degree or another. It is one of the many reasons I think we will ultimately all be better off when such divisiveness is behind us and religions have reduced to a proverbial vestige of human history. Alas, I do not think that will happen in my lifetime, and I suspect not in my children's life times. Perhaps their children - if we don't destroy ourselves before then.

[Cow Poke]

"ant-atheist bigot"

Yeah, he's good for an occasional laugh.

[Zymologist]

Yeah, he's good for an occasional laugh.

An ant-atheist bigot: the worst kind of bigot.

[Cow Poke]

An ant-atheist bigot: the worst kind of bigot.

But he made me think of Mad Magazine - Spy vs Spy, and the anti-anti-rocket, and all that. The boy is amusing!

spyvsspy.jpg

[carpedm9587]

False equivalence for the win, carpe? Islam has expanded solely through the sword for nearly all of its history. In contrast, you are vastly exaggerating the spread of Christianity in Europe via the sword, and the New World conquests were not significantly driven by religion (though it was occasionally used as a convenient cloak).

You know, I am really not surprised by "it's not the same for Christians!" OBP - anyone studying the history of Christianity will quickly see that it's spread was also widely by the sword. By the time you get to the so-called "dark ages," the line between sacred authority and secular authority all but evaporates. Bishops are princes and also the secular authority within their realm. Journeys of discovery and colonization are simultaneously political/military and religious, often conducted under the direction (or with the permission) of the church authority.

Sorry, OBP. While I agree no two religions are "equivalent," for obvious reasons, religious expansion in both the Islamic and Christian worlds has had similar themes throughout. Heck, it had similar themes in the early days of Judaism, as early Israel set out to carve a nation out of the middle east and broadly (though not exclusively) expanded "by the sword." Do a bit of research on the "militant orders" of the church and their respective charisms.

I'm not sure what you're trying to combat here; even you acknowledge that the only non-Muslim explicit theocracy is an insignificant flyspeck. Are you trying to imply that those are the only countries where sharia law is in effect?

I am pointing out that the existence of theocracies is thin in the world. As for countries with Sharia law, there are fewer countries with elements of Sharia Law in their legal systems than there are countries with elements of Christian Law in their legal systems. You speak of "Sharia Law" as if it is the cohesive body of law that everyone agrees on and is equally implemented everywhere. It's not. And given that there is an enormous amount of overlap between Sharia Law and Christian Law, it's rather hard to say which countries are motivated by which principles, unless you simply assume that the legal system will be most impacted by the views of the majority (which is probably a safe assumption). Yet only a small handful of the most conservative countries have integrated the most onerous elements of Sharia Law into their legal system, just as few (any?) countries that are predominantly Christian would reach into the OT and implement some of the vilest parts of Deuteronomy.

Your opinion of my opinion is duly noted. Be sure to let me know how my opinion is allegedly anti-Muslim.

Not so much in this post.