Freedom of Speech / Right to Offend

Sadhu

Well-known member
D right to offend is a integral part of right to free speech.
That's why Budhha happened. N nanak.
Ther r some hindu clowns opposing a novel by a tamil author.
But d writer himself is a hindu. Hindu's shud hv no proble with that.
Hindu's hv questioned even Ram.
Hindu's can handle it. It's d muslims n sikh who brook no offense to religion.
They r d only two left who take religion that seriously.
But then they always were much like each other.

Islam especially has largely been exempt from the critical scrutiny dat other religions
hv undergone to modernise them. If one wants to address this problem, one has to go
to its very roots. Preaching principles of freedom of expression alone won’t do any good.

Ppl shud b taught to distinguish between right and wrong without the help of religion..
All religions r outdated. N they all take away freedom.

-
 

Dhillon

Dhillon Sa'aB™
Staff member
Ther r some hindu clowns opposing a novel by a tamil author.
-------------------------
Hindu's can handle it. It's d muslims n sikh who brook no offense to religion.

-
aren't you are contradicting yourself ?

and not all muslims or sikhs are insecure about their beliefs, only they don't make as much noise as the other type :p
 

ลgǝи†.47

Codename 47
Everyone has a freedom of speech, you can say whatever you but cannot do whatever you want.

How can you draw a line ?

Freedom of speech means you are free to give your words/views about anything, means you have a chance to have your say.

Athiests for instance may give a speech about all the religions, not targeting anyone, for any specific reason.

No one should take offense of anything like that. Not everyone has same views on certain things,hence the change in mindsets and mentality. If you cannot let one say what he wants, results can be very extreme.

What if the speech comes via anonymous group ? would you be able to track it down and make a big deal about it ? no
 

Sadhu

Well-known member
-
aren't you are contradicting yourself ?
No. Wat I'm saying is that
D sikh r not criticising a movie made by a sikh, and, d muslims r not
criticising cartoons made by a muslim
Hindu's r criticising ia book written by another hindu.
Hindu's also burn d manu smriti.
But I do add dat hinduism can do without these khakhi shorts n their inferiority comples ideas...
like sage Kanad hving conducted a nuclear test in 2000BC, or Ravan builkding aeroplanes...

-
and not all muslims or sikhs are insecure about their beliefs,
only they don't make as much noise as the other type :
Noise is gud at times. N they shud make it.
See, I don't chorus d thots of RSS VHP type but I do believe
dat d nehruvians deliberately denied us our own history.
Take for example Bahadur Shas Zafar marg in Dilli.
He was a poet n a great connoiseaur of arts nehruvians tols us.
They nvr tell he also tortured n killed Banda Singh Bahadur n his 10 yr old son
in broad daylight. If Hindu's want Bahadur Shah Zafar marg to b renamed
as Banda singh bahadur marg even U wub want to contribute to that noise.

D nehruvians denied us our own history. They taught us abt d massacres of whites at d hands
of another white man, Hitler, but dey nvr told us how mughals tormented us. Kurram(shah-e-jahan)
built d taj-mahal, a monument of luv. Dis same kurram also tortured n killed Guru Arjan dev.
These things dey dont teach un in school. Now if somebody makes a noise abt that, is it wrong??

Then ther is dis ban on jallikattu. Meat eaters r criticising jalli-kattu.
dey don't want a ban on horse racing.
even d media does but nvr tells us what PETA has to say abt KFC.
D media gets advertising revenue from KFC, not d tamils.
In mumbai we hv a situation wher one can kill a cow but killing a dog is a non-bailable offense.
B'coz d white man eats d cow n luvs d dog.. The liberals r after d blood of those two tribals
from manipur who the TOI reported today killed n ate a labrador.
These linerals also say dat d terrorist attack in france was a result of all d killings
n illtreatment meted out to muslims by france n Amereica.
Ur right to extend your arm stops where my nose begins, say d liberals.
Somebody has confused liberalism with libertarianism...
D right to free speech can only b absolute.
If not then Kabir shud b in jail.

-
 

Dhillon

Dhillon Sa'aB™
Staff member
That was a Different Bahadur Shah.
Zafar, the last mughal was nominal leader of 1857 revolt.
 

Sadhu

Well-known member
That was a Different Bahadur Shah.
Zafar, the last mughal was nominal leader of 1857 revolt.
-
I stand corrected. But I think I made a point. Ther is a street called aurangzeb marg.
N d Palam airport was renamed Indira Gandhi International just a year after operation
blue star n d anti sikh riot. What Kurram did we r nvr told. A little abt Ranjiot Singh
is taught but that too in d English subject n not history.

We r taught dat Bahadur Shah Zafar was d last emperor of India b4 british took over.
We r not told dat he was d emperor of only Dilli. That was all he had under his control.
D sikh, maratha's, tamils n d Ahoms(of assam) had taken everything.

N d british r demonised, d mughals r not. British wer not as bad as d mughals.
I wud prefer d british over d mughals, anythime.
They did India a favor by partitioning India.
Can U imagine. 39% muslim population in a united India??
Ur site is called united-punjab. U hv any idea what dat will mean?
D sikh will b a minority.

returning back to d main topic, I hv to add dat d sympathies of d intellectuals r drawn
towards d muslims only bcoz they wer colonised by european nations. Or mayb by the
fate of Muslims persecuted in Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestine.
But d west is not to b blamed for that.
Problem is with islam. Bur d intellectuals r busy claiming that d radicals' version is
not d true spirit of islam. Inspite of numerous verses in suras like al-Bakara, al-Nisa,
al-Anfal, n al-Tauba of d Quran dat speak of killing ppl who have no faith in Islam.

As long as Islam remains unreformed, there can be no end to terror..

-
 

Dhillon

Dhillon Sa'aB™
Staff member
I much prefer 'palam' myself, naming everything after a Gandhi is legacy of congress era.

for British India was never 'Home', barring few fanatic Mughals it wasn't too bad, after all India was united and economic super power under mughal rule.

every religion needs update, hundred or thousands of years old philosophy can't have much relevance today.
 

Sadhu

Well-known member
I much prefer 'palam' myself, naming everything after a Gandhi is legacy of congress era.

for British India was never 'Home', barring few fanatic Mughals it wasn't too bad,
after all India was united and economic super power under mughal rule.

every religion needs update, hundred or thousands of years old philosophy can't
have much relevance today.
-
That may b debatable. That India was nvr home to d british. If U read d history of d Raj-Bhavan, the residence
of d President of India, U will realise d lengths d british went to to get if completed. It took 30 yrs to build.
There ws pressure on England to scrap it after d first world war, but dey went ahead with it's construction,
even tho d British economy itself was under severe pressure. Dey wer building a resident for d Vice-roy of India.
They nvr had imagined dey will hv to leave India. They will building something dat will over-shadow every othr
monument of India. D Raj-Bhavan does overshadow every other monument. It's grandeur is greater thatn d Taj.
Next time U visit Dilli do visit d raj bhavan. It's open to public three days a week....

And,
I agree dat every religion needs reforms but Islam is not ready for it. D intellectuals don't find fault with it.
Dey always tend to blame others for knowing so little of Islam. They want governments to involve them in
decision making. Thats d solution they offer.

As for those followers of Muhamad who want to establish a quintessential Islamic caliphate to rule d world,
n rserve d right to do away wid anyone who happen to disbelieve or mock Islam, all dat d intellectuals hv to say
is dat dey r misinterpreting Islam, dat Islam does nt provide any sort of influence watsoever to kill non-muslims.

D truth is dat dese so called muslim intellectuals themselves do nt believe in plurality of thoughts or in
democratic principles. Dey too rely on a theocratic, monolithic version of their medieval belief system.
They talk abt plularity only where dey r a minority. Has any muslim intellectual ever spoken against
d practice of be-heading of women in Saudi-Arabia? D saudi state beheaded a woman last week..

If dey start preaching d Koran in local languages many Muslims, esp women, will want to renounce dat religion.
But d Koran is to b read only in Arabic.

-
 

ลgǝи†.47

Codename 47
-
That may b debatable. That India was nvr home to d british. If U read d history of d Raj-Bhavan, the residence
of d President of India, U will realise d lengths d british went to to get if completed. It took 30 yrs to build.
There ws pressure on England to scrap it after d first world war, but dey went ahead with it's construction,
even tho d British economy itself was under severe pressure. Dey wer building a resident for d Vice-roy of India.
They nvr had imagined dey will hv to leave India. They will building something dat will over-shadow every othr
monument of India. D Raj-Bhavan does overshadow every other monument. It's grandeur is greater thatn d Taj.
Next time U visit Dilli do visit d raj bhavan. It's open to public three days a week....

And,
I agree dat every religion needs reforms but Islam is not ready for it. D intellectuals don't find fault with it.
Dey always tend to blame others for knowing so little of Islam. They want governments to involve them in
decision making. Thats d solution they offer.

As for those followers of Muhamad who want to establish a quintessential Islamic caliphate to rule d world,
n rserve d right to do away wid anyone who happen to disbelieve or mock Islam, all dat d intellectuals hv to say
is dat dey r misinterpreting Islam, dat Islam does nt provide any sort of influence watsoever to kill non-muslims.

D truth is dat dese so called muslim intellectuals themselves do nt believe in plurality of thoughts or in
democratic principles. Dey too rely on a theocratic, monolithic version of their medieval belief system.
They talk abt plularity only where dey r a minority. Has any muslim intellectual ever spoken against
d practice of be-heading of women in Saudi-Arabia? D saudi state beheaded a woman last week..

If dey start preaching d Koran in local languages many Muslims, esp women, will want to renounce dat religion.
But d Koran is to b read only in Arabic.

-
It could be bit off topic here but with Islam what I've found is that a lot of misinterpretetion of the religion is being delivered as what you call a Speech.

I've seen this guy Zakir Nayak video, who explained that eating non-veg is allowed in islam because of a scientific reason. He explained that humans have canine teeths on the side to tear meat.

why would you bring science, in that way we all are same and no space for religion isn;t it ?
 

Sadhu

Well-known member
Humans hving se-*ual organs cannot b used as a scientific reason to justify ra-ping n pi-m-ping of kafir woman,
even minors. So d scholars simpy say dat it's not Islam. It's a bad cop good cop thing.... wher d radicals terrorise
women, rape n pimp dem n then d scholars coming n telling d woman not to blame Islam n trust them....
D same cycle is repeated every few yrs. Thats whats bin happening.. chit bhi mera, patt bhi mera...

As to science, well, it says many things.
For example dis belief in god is unnecessary info dat gets passed on to children in d name of good education.

N if some-one wants to eat meat, just eat it. why get apologetic n luk for justifications??
Interesting thing is humans don't eat d dog. Do U know why??
Coz humans wer incapable of hunting dogs. With dogs d humans feared becoming d hunted.
Cowards. Dey eat only herbivores. Who can't defend themselves.
D rock python is far more courageous n noble. It doesn't even poison it's victim.

Anyway, what I want to say is that what d muslim scholars n intellectuals call misinterpretation
of Islam is not not really so. ISIS n Boko Haram hv rightly interpreted Islam. Dats wat Islam is.

Let those who find not The wherewithal for marriage Keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means Out of His grace.
And if any of your slaves Ask for a deed in writing (To enable them to earn Their freedom for a certain sum), Give them such
a deed If ye know any good In them; yea, give them Something yourselves Out of the means which God has given to you.
But force not your maids To prostitution when they desire Chastity, in order that ye May make a gain In the goods of this life.
But if anyone compels them, Yet, after such compulsion, Is God Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them).

24:33
Click to read :
The Holy Quran: S?ra XXIV. N?r, or Light

Note:
D above r from an English translation of the Qur'an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1872–1953).
It is d most widely circulated English translations of the Qur'an, and had been distributed
and subsidized by Saudi Arabian beneficiaries during the 20th century.

-
...barring few fanatic Mughals it wasn't too bad, after all India was united and economic super power under mughal rule.
Shahjehan emptied d state coffers building d Tajmahal.
D slaves wer probably flogged to work faster. N it was not for some mere months, but for 22 long years
(years of ripe youth!) that his slaves toiled to fulfill his whim.
And when it’s all done, how does he reward the architect? I think we all know.
Whats more. He wanted a black Tajmahal opp d white one d othr side of d river built in his memory.
Aurangzeb nvr fulfilled his wish. He infact put his father in jail.
If economy is everything Aurangzeb is far more preferable than his father Kurram(shahjehan)
If economy is everything then d sikh wud not hv rebelled against d mughals.
Guru Tegh Bahadur wud not hv challenged aurangzeb.

N india ws an economic power bcoz nobody had heard of europe back then. D europeans had built
d first prototype of d steam engine b4 jehangir took throne. ( Leonardo da Vinci's papers dating to
d late 15th century carry d design for a steam-powered cannon called the Architonnerre.)
N galileo had already built d telescope.

-
N this may nt b relevant here but here r some other lesser know facts abt d Taj...
1. Mumtaz was shahjahans 4th of Shahjehans 7 wives..
2. Shahjahan killed mumtaz’s husband to marry her.
3. Mumtaj died during her 14th delivery.
4. After mumtaz’s death shahjahan married her sister.

-
 

ลgǝи†.47

Codename 47
Humans hving se-*ual organs cannot b used as a scientific reason to justify ra-ping n pi-m-ping of kafir woman,
even minors. So d scholars simpy say dat it's not Islam. It's a bad cop good cop thing.... wher d radicals terrorise
women, rape n pimp dem n then d scholars coming n telling d woman not to blame Islam n trust them....
D same cycle is repeated every few yrs. Thats whats bin happening.. chit bhi mera, patt bhi mera...

As to science, well, it says many things.
For example dis belief in god is unnecessary info dat gets passed on to children in d name of good education.

N if some-one wants to eat meat, just eat it. why get apologetic n luk for justifications??
Interesting thing is humans don't eat d dog. Do U know why??
Coz humans wer incapable of hunting dogs. With dogs d humans feared becoming d hunted.
Cowards. Dey eat only herbivores. Who can't defend themselves.
D rock python is far more courageous n noble. It doesn't even poison it's victim.

Anyway, what I want to say is that what d muslim scholars n intellectuals call misinterpretation
of Islam is not not really so. ISIS n Boko Haram hv rightly interpreted Islam. Dats wat Islam is.

-
Agreed!
 

dilbardeewana

अतिथि
-
That may b debatable. That India was nvr home to d british. If U read d history of d Raj-Bhavan, the residence
of d President of India, U will realise d lengths d british went to to get if completed. It took 30 yrs to build.
There ws pressure on England to scrap it after d first world war, but dey went ahead with it's construction,
even tho d British economy itself was under severe pressure. Dey wer building a resident for d Vice-roy of India.
They nvr had imagined dey will hv to leave India. They will building something dat will over-shadow every othr
monument of India. D Raj-Bhavan does overshadow every other monument. It's grandeur is greater thatn d Taj.
Next time U visit Dilli do visit d raj bhavan. It's open to public three days a week....

And,
I agree dat every religion needs reforms but Islam is not ready for it. D intellectuals don't find fault with it.
Dey always tend to blame others for knowing so little of Islam. They want governments to involve them in
decision making. Thats d solution they offer.

As for those followers of Muhamad who want to establish a quintessential Islamic caliphate to rule d world,
n rserve d right to do away wid anyone who happen to disbelieve or mock Islam, all dat d intellectuals hv to say
is dat dey r misinterpreting Islam, dat Islam does nt provide any sort of influence watsoever to kill non-muslims.

D truth is dat dese so called muslim intellectuals themselves do nt believe in plurality of thoughts or in
democratic principles. Dey too rely on a theocratic, monolithic version of their medieval belief system.
They talk abt plularity only where dey r a minority. Has any muslim intellectual ever spoken against
d practice of be-heading of women in Saudi-Arabia? D saudi state beheaded a woman last week..

If dey start preaching d Koran in local languages many Muslims, esp women, will want to renounce dat religion.
But d Koran is to b read only in Arabic.


-
Sir

Quraan were revealed in Arabic Language, But it's translations are AVAILABLE ALL LANGUAGES, and are available online for anyone (irrespective of race/gender/nationality) free for reading and learning (and for mis-quoting). If you have some patience and an heart to learn what you really do not know, please find some time and read it completely when you can. That will defenitly cure your 'islamophobia'. I am not a scholar in this religion, but have enough knowledge to confirm you that ISLAM DOES NOT advocate killings innocents for what-so-ever reasons those killers may have.

Quaran clearly Announces (in 2:256) "(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''

Whoever doing against teachings of Islam's Holy Book (Quraan)is defenitely NOT FROM MUSLIMS. They are Muslims only for name-sake. don't blame the religion for what such people do.

Please ... accept the fact that, despite all those anti-islamic propaganda, ISLAM still is the largest growing religion in the west....WHY?..

Please sir, WE ARE NOT afraid of someone denouncing Islam - (especially when he/she gets a chance to read & understand Quran in his own language). Infact Sites like The Noble Qur'an - ?????? ?????? is offering translations of in almost all languages. Remember, according to Islam, there is no 'compulsory'.

Iff someone finds that some othere religion is BETTER than his own, he is free to go and accept what he thinks is true.. no hard feelings :)

Good Day
 
D right to offend is a integral part of right to free speech.
That's why Budhha happened. N nanak.
Ther r some hindu clowns opposing a novel by a tamil author.
But d writer himself is a hindu. Hindu's shud hv no proble with that.
Hindu's hv questioned even Ram.
Hindu's can handle it. It's d muslims n sikh who brook no offense to religion.
They r d only two left who take religion that seriously.
But then they always were much like each other.

Islam especially has largely been exempt from the critical scrutiny dat other religions
hv undergone to modernise them. If one wants to address this problem, one has to go
to its very roots. Preaching principles of freedom of expression alone won’t do any good.

Ppl shud b taught to distinguish between right and wrong without the help of religion..
All religions r outdated. N they all take away freedom.

-
veerji j tuss eh sara kujh HINDI ja fer PUNJABI ch type kro ta jyada vdiya niga k.......te rhi gal tussi kon hunde ho kise v bande de PANTH te cmnt krn wale...ethe avda sma(time) waste krn naalo changa eh aa v tussi RAM JI nu yad krya kro te j ik gal tussi mande ho ta eda kro tussi daily swere 9.00 wje to le k 9.30 wje tak CHARDIKLA TIME TV vekhya kroji.......
 

ลgǝи†.47

Codename 47
veerji j tuss eh sara kujh HINDI ja fer PUNJABI ch type kro ta jyada vdiya niga k.......te rhi gal tussi kon hunde ho kise v bande de PANTH te cmnt krn wale...ethe avda sma(time) waste krn naalo changa eh aa v tussi RAM JI nu yad krya kro te j ik gal tussi mande ho ta eda kro tussi daily swere 9.00 wje to le k 9.30 wje tak CHARDIKLA TIME TV vekhya kroji.......
Veer eh public forum hai and ithe freedom of speech da topic chal reha and tusi kise de views nu sun sakde ho and harek nu kehan da haq hai. oh jo vi karda kar sakda tuhade kehan na kehan naal kuch change thodi na hovega :)

sareya di soch alag hundi hai sab same sochde hunde ta ajj ladayia jhagde na hunde
 

Sadhu

Well-known member
Quaran clearly Announces (in 2:256) "(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''
-
What 2:256 says is that d muslim is nt to b forced to follow anything else, n that d muslim is unbreakable.

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error.
And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold
which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

AND,
d Qur’an certainly proclaims d wen d time is appropriate, Muslims must use force to convert d unbelievers to Islam.
For d non-Muslims, the alternative to dis is to pay d humiliating protection money (Jizya) or b killed. A militarily
dominant Islam, without doubt, precludes the peaceful co-existence wid d unbelievers if d Muslims have to abide
strictly by d unalterable stipulations of d Qur’an.


Now, let us have a closer look at what the Koran says about the infidels:

9:5 - “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them,
lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”


9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”

9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to
the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”


8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish
two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people
devoid of understanding.”


9:123 “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”


Ishaq:578 “Crushing the heads of the infidels and splitting their skulls with sharp swords, we continually thrust
and cut at the enemy. Blood gushed from their deep wounds as the battle wore them down. We conquered bearing
the Prophet’s fluttering war banner. Our cavalry was submerged in rising dust, and our spears quivered, but by us
the Prophet gained victory.”


Ishaq:587 “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until
you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy
ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us
at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they
must suffer disgrace.”


-
This is d reason why we see very few “moderate” muslims coming out n speaking against d violence.
Ther is so much overwhelming evidence stacked against dem dey r not able to be “moderate” because
of the fundamental belief’s of Islam.


-
 
Last edited:

dilbardeewana

अतिथि
-
What 2:256 says is that d muslim is nt to b forced to follow anything else, n that d muslim is unbreakable.

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error.
And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold
which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

AND,
d Qur’an certainly proclaims d wen d time is appropriate, Muslims must use force to convert d unbelievers to Islam.
For d non-Muslims, the alternative to dis is to pay d humiliating protection money (Jizya) or b killed. A militarily
dominant Islam, without doubt, precludes the peaceful co-existence wid d unbelievers if d Muslims have to abide
strictly by d unalterable stipulations of d Qur’an.

Now, let us have a closer look at what the Koran says about the infidels:

9:5 - “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them,
lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”

9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to
the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish
two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid
of understanding.”

9:123 “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”

Ishaq:578 “Crushing the heads of the infidels and splitting their skulls with sharp swords, we continually thrust
and cut at the enemy. Blood gushed from their deep wounds as the battle wore them down. We conquered bearing
the Prophet’s fluttering war banner. Our cavalry was submerged in rising dust, and our spears quivered, but by us
the Prophet gained victory.”

Ishaq:587 “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until
you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy
ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us
at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they
must suffer disgrace.”

-
This is d reason why we see very few “moderate” muslims coming out n speaking against d violence.
Ther is so much overwhelming evidence stacked against dem so r not able to be “moderate” because
of the fundamental belief’s of Islam.

-
Thanks Bro

It was a long post, and I dont have (NOW - on duty) enough time to reply all, But, I will surely reply them all LATER.

1. n that d muslim is unbreakable....

To be frank, I dont understand what you are trying to tell us by this..
verse 2:256 implies that, there is no forcing in religion, who ever dejects evils (things, deeds etc) and believes in Allaah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it ( means he/she is holding a very strong / strongest support ever one can get, which will never let her fall down)

2.
AND,
d Qur’an certainly proclaims d wen d time is appropriate, Muslims must use force to convert d unbelievers to Islam.
For d non-Muslims, the alternative to dis is to pay d humiliating protection money (Jizya) or b killed. A militarily
dominant Islam, without doubt, precludes the peaceful co-existence wid d unbelievers if d Muslims have to abide
strictly by d unalterable stipulations of d Qur’an.



I dont know from where you got this information.. (any references???)
Do you know about "ZAKAT" ???. it is an obligatory/compulsory payment ALL ( rich ) muslims has to pay from their wealth for helping the poors of the community. If the state is under islamic ruler, it is states responsible for collecting this and distribute this collection among needy poeple. Under, the islamic state, non-muslims also will be enjoying the same protection, facilities and benefits those are enjoyed by muslims there, so, naturally when muslims are paying a propperty tax, non muslims are also subject to some kind of tax, that is was called JIZYA. This applicable only where and when organized collection and distribution of ZAKAT is performed by government. I think it was just a part of simple justice. I don't recall reading about single incident where some one were KILLED because of non-payment of JIZYA.. But, Yes, there were instances of rulers declaring forcible collection of ZAKAT from those MUSLIMS who were refusing to pay just because RULER has changed.!!!

I cannot agree with last part of your statement... As far as I knows, there were only a very few fully muslim controlled states across arab region after Prophet Mohammed's death. (the last one such ruler were Umer Bin Abdul Aziz 2 in AD 720) I'm sure that there was peace and harmony between muslims and non-muslims in that period, and, from what I've learned from history, NO innocents were ever killed because of his/her religion OR were ever forced to change their religion becasue they were living under an Islamic Ruler. Please prove otherwise if you can...

Muslims (do NOT ever take this as those who are living with muslim names) are STRICTLY to follow and abide laws / rulings / guidelines set for them by God (through Quarn & His Messengers) irrespective of whether they lives under an Islamic State or Not !!!

Rest of the points raised will be answered later !!!
 
Top