Freedom of expression/Inflaming religious senti's - Page 16

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Yes, it's the same as being in a legal system which has a law that none of the laws can be amended. And you're trying to change some laws and at the same time claiming that you are not doing anything illegal. No, you are breaking a law and thus are not a follower of the law anymore.

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Tell me something, have you been reading Karen Armstrong?

I've not read Karen Armstrong recently. However, her "History of God" is required reading in some courses I have taken. If you have a problem with her work you should ask the University of Wisconsin why they consider her an authority on western monotheism.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest, because we will end up going in circles. It is clear you have made up your mind about Islam and no one is going to be able to change that. You are a rational adult and can think for yourself. All I can hope is that the outcomes of your thoughts and actions will be positive.

My mind regarding Islam, religion and humanity in general are also pretty much made up. As a history and theology dork who has studied so many human social evolutions and changes through passage of time, it is impossible for me to buy that any social construct is rigid and unchangeable no matter what the doctrine. I'm never going to see otherwise either.

Agreed to disagree!

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Yes, it's the same as being in a legal system which has a law that none of the laws can be amended. And you're trying to change some laws and at the same time claiming that you are not doing anything illegal. No, you are breaking a law and thus are not a follower of the law anymore.

And my contention is that

1) The law is so old and been through passage of time and human influence, we cannot ascertain its true nature and intentions.

2) The same law can be interpreted differently based on time and interpretation. Example – Jim Crow laws compared to Brown vs. Board of Education. The Bill of rights remained unaltered, but how it is applied changed.

3) Circumstance and time can make bending or overriding unaltered laws acceptable. Security checks are a 4^th amendment violation, but have become acceptable by many given the situation.

4) Breaking a law does not always make a criminal. Jaywalking or speeding break the law, but the people are not considered criminals.

5) Eventually, even non-amendable laws can be amended when the citizens see it fit. From a long term historic perspective such social changes are inevitable. They don't end things, but become a part of it. The USA did not cease being the USA when slavery was abolished. USA is the USA because slavery was abolished.

6) Religion is not what it is because of doctrine alone. Religion is what it is because of people, society, culture, change and a variety of forces that shape and evolve with time.

Originally posted by: Aya.

@Rehanism

🤣 What's with the last video you posted ? Hahahaha !

Islam is violent & Buddhism is not ?

In Berma, the Buddhists are slaughtering the Muslims !

Pathetic !

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

And my contention is that

1) The law is so old and been through passage of time and human influence, we cannot ascertain its true nature and intentions.

The bad news for you is that Islamic scriptures, doctrines, biographies are extremely well preserved and almost unaltered, thanks to the fear of Allah associated with it. Muhammad had prophesied that by the time of Judgement day Muslims shall be divided into 73 sects and out of that followers of 72 sects would go to hell and only one - that remained true to authentic Islam and traditions of Muhammad to the letter - would receive Allah's favor. Consequently Muslims, unlike the followers of any other religion, had been exceptionally cautious about the health of the aboriginal texts, tenets and doctrines of Islam.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

2) The same law can be interpreted differently based on time and interpretation. Example ' Jim Crow laws compared to Brown vs. Board of Education. The Bill of rights remained unaltered, but how it is applied changed.

3) Circumstance and time can make bending or overriding unaltered laws acceptable. Security checks are a 4^th amendment violation, but have become acceptable by many given the situation.

4) Breaking a law does not always make a criminal. Jaywalking or speeding break the law, but the people are not considered criminals.

5) Eventually, even non-amendable laws can be amended when the citizens see it fit. From a long term historic perspective such social changes are inevitable. They don't end things, but become a part of it. The USA did not cease being the USA when slavery was abolished. USA is the USA because slavery was abolished.

Yes..But all of that is true for man-made laws and not for divine laws personally ordained by the creator of the universe who is allegedly possessor of infinite wisdom that no mortal can hope to contest; and might incur God's wrath and a VIP pass to hell if he attempts to.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

6) Religion is not what it is because of doctrine alone. Religion is what it is because of people, society, culture, change and a variety of forces that shape and evolve with time.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

My mind regarding Islam, religion and humanity in general are also pretty much made up. As a history and theology dork who has studied so many human social evolutions and changes through passage of time, it is impossible for me to buy that any social construct is rigid and unchangeable no matter what the doctrine. I'm never going to see otherwise either.

Agreed to disagree!

Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil

I could be wrong, in which case correct me.

- Strict Islamic countries (Saudia Arab and Iran for instance) have many archaic laws - like public flogging, stoning and beheading people, amputating limbs of thieves for issues like stealing, premarital sex, drinking, homosexuality and adultery, etc. While stealing and adultery are crimes, do such inhuman and barbaric punishments really suit the extent of the crime? Premarital sex and drinking are personal choices, and even if criminalized I don't see how anyone can possibly prescribe barbaric punishments to such acts. Homosexuality is something one has no control over, and to put someone to death for it or force them to change their genders is plain sick to me.
Are such barbaric way of punishment condoned by Islam or not?

- Fatwas. They are being put on anyone and everyone around. Anyone who utters a word against Islam is issued a fatwa, some of which even carries the death penalty. Salman Rushdie, Ayan Hirsi, Taslima Nasreen - they all had been victims of it. Why is the punishment of criticizing Islam so harsh? Also, fatwas have no place in secular democracies, why put fatwas on people living in the countries that don't follow Islamic law?

- Is the Burkha mandated in Islam? If yes, why not a similar dress code for men too? Does people have the right to not wear the burkha or similar clothing? Is parents forcing their daughters to wear burkha wrong?

- Does Islam give people (Muslims and non-Muslims) the right to voice their opinions against Islam?

- What is the actual punishment for apostasy per Islamic law? (Ordinarily, there shouldn't be any punishment as it's no ones business but the person's what religion he wishes to follow and what he doesn't).

- Why is gay marriage not permissible under Islamic law, and why do Islamic societies and Muslims in general not acknowledge their existence? Science has proven it that being gay is not a choice and that there is currently no way gays can be made straight. Is asking them to change genders or stay celibate all their lives not unreasonable and inhuman? As far as I know, celibacy is not encouraged in Islam, so why this double standard? And why punish people based on something so harmless and personal, something that is beyond their control?

Now I am not saying Islam necessarily condones those acts. But the fact remains that these Muslims (many of them are even Muslim scholars who probably knows and studied Islam more
than we have) are justifying these acts by quoting verses from the Qu'ran and Hadeeth. So have all the verses been quoted out of context, misinterpreted or mistranslated? Or does Islam really allow them?

Share your opinion.

(I am done for today. Have spent the whole day - and night - behind an online forum 😭. Oh well. There were some good exchanges too). 😆