The Uneven Response of Islam to Universal Human Rights

[cooterhein]

In 1948, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was the first global expression of what rights all human beings are entitled to. It holds the distinction of being the most-translated document in the world, and is understood by many international lawyers as being part of customary international law. It is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations.
Many Islamic countries, most notably Turkey, signed on and praised the document. Saudi Arabia was a notable opponent that offered some harsh criticism. Pakistan would later lodge a formal disagreement with these criticisms. Most African countries at this point were not a part of the UN, so it didn't really apply to them.

Later, in 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam was created. Countries like Egypt, Saudi, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan signed on. It affirmed much of what the Universal Declaration said, but it upheld the inequalities inherent in Islamic law. To clarify, these countries are generally known as bad actors when it comes to human rights, the treatment of women, and religious freedom, but they went out of their way to protect Islam and uphold inequities in the name of Islamic sharia.

You can probably tell where I stand on this, but I want to put this out there for a random group of Muslims to comment on. What do you think of the different options that Islamic countries had available to them? Should they have all gotten on board with the Universal Declaration? Is the Cairo document something that you're sympathetic toward, or do you view it as a mistake, an embarrassment, or something that is used to prop up evil in the name of Islam?

And in general, from you as a Muslim to me as a Christian in the United States, what do you want me to know about either of these documents and about a particular kind of Islamic approach to this sort of issue?

[*charisma*]

Firstly, the UN sucks. Its doing nothing in regards to the palestinian-israeli conflict so I personally dont think they have any validity or authority to tell any country what to do since its quite hypocrital. They only makes moves based on how it affects first world countries. Israel has broken MANY UN resolutions as well as international laws, so what difference does it make what we think?? If the UN allows Israel to continue what its doing then whats the point of their list of "human rights"? The UN can list a million "human rights" but it means nothing if they themselves cannot implement it. So enough about pointing fingers towards countries like saudi arabia and pakistan cuz im 100% sure whatever "rights" their governments deny them, the people will still rather be in their own respective countries than to be palestinians under occupation, isolation, and oppression.

[Zafran]

salaam

There is no country that agrees with universal human rights set up by the UN because they are vague and contradict each other. Its basically meaningless.

For example article 29 contradicts article 19 and a lot of other articles. Charisma gave one example but there many examples of the UN not being able to do anything when powerful nations decide to bomb or pillage or bully weaker nations.

[Scimitar]

In 1948, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was the first global expression of what rights all human beings are entitled to. It holds the distinction of being the most-translated document in the world, and is understood by many international lawyers as being part of customary international law. It is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations.

Ever heard of Cyrus? the Persian? See, this universal declaration is nothing new.... go back 2,600 years and you find it.

Many Islamic countries...

...And in general, from you as a Muslim to me as a Christian in the United States, what do you want me to know about either of these documents and about a particular kind of Islamic approach to this sort of issue?

This is what I would have you know:

The Prophet Muhammad's Final Sermon:

After praising, and thanking God, the Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said "O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore, listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present here today.

O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds. God has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. God has Judged that there shall be no interest, and that all the interest due to Al-Abbas ibn Abd’el Muttalib shall henceforth be waived.

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under a trust from God and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.

O People, listen to me in earnest, worship God, perform your five daily prayers, fast during the month of Ramadan, and offer Zakat. Perform Hajj if you have the means.
All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white; [none have superiority over another] except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.

Remember, one day you will appear before God and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.
O People, no prophet or apostle will come after me, and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O people, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my example, the Sunnah, and if you follow these you will never go astray.

All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and it may be that the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people."

Thus the beloved Prophet completed his Final Sermon, and upon it, near the summit of Arafat, the revelation came down:

"…This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My Grace upon you, and have chosen Islam for you as your religion…" (Quran 5:3)

Even today the Last Sermon of Prophet Muhammad is passed to every Muslim in every corner of the world through all possible means of communication. Muslims are reminded about it in mosques and in lectures. Indeed the meanings found in this sermon are indeed astounding, touching upon some of the most important rights God has over humanity, and humanity has over each other. Though the Prophet’s soul has left this world, his words are still living in our hearts.

Would you, as a Christian find it hard to agree with this Universal Declaration of Faith, Rights and Equity?

I do not believe you would disagree with it - we do not need a Euro version of already well established ideas and concepts, we don't need a Middle Eastern rehash which butchers the very intent of the Prophet pbuh,

what we want is for the world to see our truth, because they will agree with it - but the media... heck with the media and their poli-tricking.

What say thee? Would you, as a Christian find it hard to agree with this Universal Declaration of Faith, Rights and Equity? Can we stand united in this? or apart? Those who believe in nothing will fall for anything...

Scimi

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[cooterhein]

Would you, as a Christian find it hard to agree with this Universal Declaration of Faith, Rights and Equity?

The first thing I noticed is that the correct treatment of people was only applied to Muslims, so no, I would not agree with that sort of limitation. I would also disagree with the prohibition of usury especially as it's applied to debt as a practical matter, and I would immediately point to the overall assessments of human rights abuses and near-total lack of freedom for people who live in countries that take this most seriously. I will also point out that Israel, although far from perfect, is miles better than its neighbors in terms of the way it treats minorities in its land- and that is the true measure of what sort of person you are, not just the measure of how you treat people who belong to your own religion and adequately agree with you within that sphere.

I do not believe you would disagree with it - we do not need a Euro version of already well established ideas and concepts, we don't need a Middle Eastern rehash which butchers the very intent of the Prophet pbuh,

I'd argue that you do need a Euro version, especially when you look at the blatantly obvious results in Syria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan....they are the worst of the worst, by any objective measurement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...Press_(report)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_..._Moral_Freedom

what we want is for the world to see our truth, because they will agree with it - but the media... heck with the media and their poli-tricking.

You know I'm one of those people in the world, right? The truth I see is that Muslim countries, and especially countries with Islamic law, consistently treat non-Muslims very badly.

What say thee?

Would you, as a Christian find it hard to agree with this Universal Declaration of Faith, Rights and Equity? Can we stand united in this? or apart? Those who believe in nothing will fall for anything...

No of course we're not standing together on this Specifically Muslim Declaration of Faith Rights and Equity, something that was spoken by (Mohammad - PBUH {name correction by mod}) for Muslims and only for the good of Muslims.
What do you have to say about Turkey, an overwhelmingly Muslim country that enthusiastically adopted the Actually Universal Document of the UN? Why was that a mistake for them, and what does it say about Turkey?

[cooterhein]

salaam

There is no country that agrees with universal human rights set up by the UN because they are vague and contradict each other. Its basically meaningless.

There are a lot of countries that agree with this particular document as it pertains to universal human rights, because they have said so in an official capacity. When they do that, it means they have agreed with it. It's official.
How is it meaningless if it is commonly held to be a part of international law? That can only be truly meaningless if international law in and of itself is meaningless.

[cooterhein]

Firstly, the UN sucks. Its doing nothing in regards to the palestinian-israeli conflict so I personally dont think they have any validity or authority to tell any country what to do since its quite hypocrital. They only makes moves based on how it affects first world countries. Israel has broken MANY UN resolutions as well as international laws, so what difference does it make what we think?? If the UN allows Israel to continue what its doing then whats the point of their list of "human rights"? The UN can list a million "human rights" but it means nothing if they themselves cannot implement it. So enough about pointing fingers towards countries like saudi arabia and pakistan cuz im 100% sure whatever "rights" their governments deny them, the people will still rather be in their own respective countries than to be palestinians under occupation, isolation, and oppression.

The occupied Palestinian territories have the stated goal of killing all Jews, the governing bodies these people have elected are officially classified as terror groups, and while over a million Palestinians live as Israeli citizens with equal rights on paper and mostly equal opportunities in actual application, one of the trenchantly upheld features of a two state solution is that the Palestinian state will absolutely prohibit the presence of any Jew within its borders. Now, if that's a hill they want to die on, I say go and die there.

[Zafran]

There are a lot of countries that agree with this particular document as it pertains to universal human rights, because they have said so in an official capacity. When they do that, it means they have agreed with it. It's official.
How is it meaningless if it is commonly held to be a part of international law? That can only be truly meaningless if international law in and of itself is meaningless.

I'll give you an example - The US and Guantanamo - The US government says it agrees with the UN decalrtion of independece but it by putting people in Gitmo it contradicts article 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11......... they could defend it by article 19 lol. Thats one country.

[Zafran]

The occupied Palestinian territories have the stated goal of killing all Jews, the governing bodies these people have elected are officially classified as terror groups, and while over a million Palestinians live as Israeli citizens with equal rights on paper and mostly equal opportunities in actual application, one of the trenchantly upheld features of a two state solution is that the Palestinian state will absolutely prohibit the presence of any Jew within its borders. Now, if that's a hill they want to die on, I say go and die there.

Thats not true at all - according to the UN security council Israel is an occupying force - Its because of US Veto power that they dont get punished. According the UN two state solution Israel HAS to withdraw to pre 1967 borders - abandon the illegal settlements and lift the blockade on Gaza otherwise its an apartheid State like south Africa.

[*charisma*]

The occupied Palestinian territories have the stated goal of killing all Jews, the governing bodies these people have elected are officially classified as terror groups, and while over a million Palestinians live as Israeli citizens with equal rights on paper and mostly equal opportunities in actual application, one of the trenchantly upheld features of a two state solution is that the Palestinian state will absolutely prohibit the presence of any Jew within its borders. Now, if that's a hill they want to die on, I say go and die there.

Yeah at this point, I don't blame them for wanting to kill all "jews", however everything you've stated is absolute BS. I've seen this country with my own eyes. Secondly there's a difference between jews and zionists and your little bit of knowledge on the topic was clearly unable to make that distinction lumping jews and zionists together. Key word: occupation.

There's no justification for anything that they've done. THere's no justification for the apartheid wall. THere's no justification for jailing children. THere's no justification for cutting off water and electrical supplies. There's no justification for bombing schools and hospitals. And there's no such thing as "equal rights." Stop being delusional.

[cooterhein]

I'll give you an example - The US and Guantanamo - The US government says it agrees with the UN decalrtion of independece but it by putting people in Gitmo it contradicts article 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11......... they could defend it by article 19 lol. Thats one country.

This is an example of how a country can get dinged a few points and wind up with a less than perfect level of compliance. It doesn't completely destroy every shred of compliance, which is what you seem to be implying. There is no actual measure of compliance that would indicate such a thing. And the US (Obama mostly) has been working on getting people out of there a little at a time, but a certain political party in the US has been just a bit difficult....
There are 79 detainees left, last I checked, this has been going down a little at a time. It might be as low as 30 or so by the time Obama leaves office, he may not be able to close it as he had hoped.

[Scimitar]

The first thing I noticed is that the correct treatment of people was only applied to Muslims, so no, I would not agree with that sort of limitation. I would also disagree with the prohibition of usury especially as it's applied to debt as a practical matter, and I would immediately point to the overall assessments of human rights abuses and near-total lack of freedom for people who live in countries that take this most seriously. I will also point out that Israel, although far from perfect, is miles better than its neighbors in terms of the way it treats minorities in its land- and that is the true measure of what sort of person you are, not just the measure of how you treat people who belong to your own religion and adequately agree with you within that sphere.

We by default give non Muslims who live in our lands freedom to live how they like, worship who they like and even govern their own affairs according to their faith... didn't you know this? A Dhimmi (non Muslim) would pay less tax than a Muslim in Muslims lands - they are afforded protection, and have lived for over a thousand years among us with no issue at all.

Even Umar RA the second khaliph of Islam was invited by the Jews of Jerusalem to govern it - he didn't take it by force... but i guess they do not teach this in the USA.

You cite Syria, Egypt, Iran, etc in the next... I'll explain to you how:

I'd argue that you do need a Euro version, especially when you look at the blatantly obvious results in Syria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan....they are the worst of the worst, by any objective measurement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...Press_(report)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_..._Moral_Freedom

Look bro, no offence but WIKI is not a reliable source for anythin, but I'll humour you anyway,

Syria - Yazidi's Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc lived side by side for millenia... they did so also in the other nations you mention. How awake are you to real world history? Is you version of history propagated only from one arm? the western? or do you study the comparatives?

I'm trying to gage whether you are indoctrinated or awake and can fathom what a comparative is - and since you are asking for us to do comparatives here - I do wonder if you are capable of doing these yourself? and if not - must I then take things slow with you, like a teacher and student type slow? step by step...

Egypt - coptic Christians sided with Muslims when the Christian emperor of Rome - heracles - broke his treaty with Muslims... those truthful coptics kept their word, and Muslims honoured them for their support.

I gather you do not know about this - and granted this is the first example - if you remain unaware of it - I feel we should start here and I can lead you through the comparatives in history step by step until you realise - you beed duped by the western arm of lies, and thuse was unable to measure any truth.

I will not feed your bias - I will only give you the truth, whether you like it, or don't like it - although not liking truth is very counter productive to your intended reason for making this thread.

Let's move onto Iran... what example are you citing? I see nothing Iran has done wrong in centuries - do you know the last time Iran invaded any country? over two centuries ago... when was the last time your nation invaded another? a few weeks ago? yesterday? Please understand - Iran is a diverse nation with Muslims, Christians, Jews, and even Zoroastrians living there side by side even today - what are they indoctrinating you with exactly? You won't hear a Christian or Jew or Zoroastrian in Iran complain of "unfair treatment" I can tell you that.

Shall we move onto Iraq? Or Sudan next? Or Libya? Or how about the USA's next intended target? Lebanon? Please tell me which? I can seriously open the gates to each of these and go step by step, through the comparative historical process from ancient times right up to modern day... will you be willing to engage?

You know I'm one of those people in the world, right? The truth I see is that Muslim countries, and especially countries with Islamic law, consistently treat non-Muslims very badly.

Which Muslims countries have you been to? I'm honestly curious. Or is this the media you cite as "example"??? Please do answer me - because I've been to many Muslim nations in my time and I can honestly say, I was also duped by the long arm of the media and western spin.

Have you heard of BBC Journalist Yvonne Ridley? She was captured by the Taliban, and imprisoned - taken good care of - her own words, and when she was released, she decided to study the Qur'an and Islam and while in the UK, under no compulsion or threat - she embraced the faith and is a Muslim now for over a decade - this, after 911 media nonsense. She was a true journalist, one who did not sell out - go check her story out for more clarification of western spin and media indoctrinate lies.

You owe it to yourself with your hubris in tow.

No of course we're not standing together on this Specifically Muslim Declaration of Faith Rights and Equity, something that was spoken by Mo for Muslims and only for the good of Muslims.

First of all you will not find Muslims abbreviating Jesus pbuh to Jes, or anything of the sort - His name is Muhammad and it means "most praised/beloved" you can find in Songs of Solomon 5:16 with the added IM at the end of his name as a suffix of respect - so honour your own holy book and address him as such if you will, but no more mo.

The word Muslim, means "One who submits their will to the Creator, God" ... guess what? Abraham was a Muslim, so was Isaac and Ishmael, and all the prophets stemming from the line if Isaac too - and so was Jesus pbuh who said "I of my own will do nothing, but with the will of the father (God)".

Want me to quote more of your scripture ??? see i'm not only verses in the comparatives from history, but religion as well, particularly the Abrahamic traditions.

When you come here with an "us vs them" attitude, I find it truly misplaced.

Look, I want you to realise something ok? Together, our two faith groups constitute more than half of the worlds populus. There can be no "peace" unless we reconcile what our faiths have taught us.

Jesus pbuh said "Hear O Israel - the Lord, God, is ONE, and you know Mark 12:31 don't you? "Love thy neighbour as you love your self" ???

Imam Ali said "none of you truly believe until you love for your brother what you love for yourself", he was asked "Is that my brother in Islam?" he replied "No, your brother in humanity".

The Prophet pbuh also said the same.

Anas ibn Malik reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “None of you will have faith until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 13, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 45

Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim

An-Nawawi said “This is interpreted as brotherhood in general, such that it includes the disbeliever and the Muslim..."

Source: Sharḥ al-Arba’īn 13

Can you do comparatives?

What do you have to say about Turkey, an overwhelmingly Muslim country that enthusiastically adopted the Actually Universal Document of the UN? Why was that a mistake for them, and what does it say about Turkey?

I've also been to Turkey, where east meets west in more than just geography... Turkey makes me giggle.

It's a compromised nation headed off by the Donmeh... do you know what that means? Look, if you don't, then you are (with respect) quite green around the ears and this shows with your line of questioning.

Please do show me that I am not wasting my time. So far I'm beginning to suspect that I am.

For the record, I have Christian friends whom consider me their brother and I consider them mine. We built our relationship based on what our holy books tell us and you know what? Your US vs THEM attitude doesn't work for me.

I'm waiting for you to prove me wrong,

God bless,

Scimi

EDIT: if you wish to discuss the modern events of todays era - you will have to start at the beginning. This is how I start, not in the middle like a "choose your own adventure" book from the eighties, ok?

As for ISIS: we do not recognise them as people of our faith, but extremists who take lives of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Yazidi's, etc for the very agencies they work for - Sempre Fe is alive and kicking, blackwater is just one example, and I can inundate you with many, enough to get you to change your narrative.

[cooterhein]

Thats not true at all - according to the UN security council Israel is an occupying force - Its because of US Veto power that they dont get punished. According the UN two state solution Israel HAS to withdraw to pre 1967 borders - abandon the illegal settlements and lift the blockade on Gaza otherwise its an apartheid State like south Africa.

That's a fair point, the US has used its veto power on many occasions to be a bad neighbor when it comes to Islamic countries. And I understand the emotional force behind your comparison to South Africa, but there are some distinctions that I would argue are actually important....they probably won't be important to you, though.

[Scimitar]

That's a fair point, the US has used its veto power on many occasions to be a bad neighbor when it comes to Islamic countries. And I understand the emotional force behind your comparison to South Africa, but there are some distinctions that I would argue are actually important....they probably won't be important to you, though.

Why? because they too are from an "emotional bias" ???

You trying to have the cake and eat it now. Surely you cannot be this disingenuous.

Scimi

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein; and welcome to the forum,

I am a Catholic, so that makes both of us guests on a Muslim forum, I have found people here to be friendly and helpful over the last eleven years. As Jesus said, we must not ignore the plank in our own eye, whilst we concentrate on the speck in our brother's eye.

A few people were responsible for 9/11, but George Bush held the whole of Afghanistan and Iraq responsible. where is the human right in that? How can you fight evil with more evil? A huge number of Iraqi and Afghan children suffer mental health problems because of the invasions, these children are innocent. Millions of people have been made refugees, loosing everything they have, not to mention the tens of thousands that have died and been injured.

And the Jews are God's chosen people, but they should treat the Palestinians as equals, they have specific scriptures about foreigners.

Ezekiel 47
21 “You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. 22 You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners residing among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23 In whatever tribe a foreigner resides, there you are to give them their inheritance,” declares the Sovereign LORD.

Leviticus 24
You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 19
33 " 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. 34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Exodus 12:49
The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you."

Exodus 22:21
"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Leviticus 19:10
Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

There is little evidence of these laws being applied in Israel, since millions of Jews moved there after WW2, and virtually taken over what was once Palestine.

America is responsible for vast misery in the world, it messes about with people's money, the sub prime banking scandal rocked the world. The misuse of lending on a massive scale, highlighting the evil of charging interest, and all the gambling that goes with it.

Coffee workers earn slave wages of a couple of dollars a day, their lives are a miserable existence. Commodity traders make millions gambling on the price of coffee. They exploit the poorest of the poor. Twenty thousand children die every day as a result of grinding poverty, preventable disease and starvation. That is about a hundred million deaths since 9/11, more people know about the three thousand deaths of 9/11 than the hundred million child deaths.

If America spent its war budget on fighting poverty, there would be more justice in the world.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people, despite our differences.

Eric

[eesa the kiwi]

Ever heard of Cyrus? the Persian? See, this universal declaration is nothing new.... go back 2,600 years and you find it.



This is what I would have you know:

The Prophet Muhammad's Final Sermon:

After praising, and thanking God, the Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said "O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore, listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present here today.

O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds. God has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. God has Judged that there shall be no interest, and that all the interest due to Al-Abbas ibn Abd’el Muttalib shall henceforth be waived.

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under a trust from God and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.

O People, listen to me in earnest, worship God, perform your five daily prayers, fast during the month of Ramadan, and offer Zakat. Perform Hajj if you have the means.
All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white; [none have superiority over another] except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.

Remember, one day you will appear before God and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.
O People, no prophet or apostle will come after me, and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O people, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my example, the Sunnah, and if you follow these you will never go astray.

All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and it may be that the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people."

Thus the beloved Prophet completed his Final Sermon, and upon it, near the summit of Arafat, the revelation came down:

"…This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My Grace upon you, and have chosen Islam for you as your religion…" (Quran 5:3)

Even today the Last Sermon of Prophet Muhammad is passed to every Muslim in every corner of the world through all possible means of communication. Muslims are reminded about it in mosques and in lectures. Indeed the meanings found in this sermon are indeed astounding, touching upon some of the most important rights God has over humanity, and humanity has over each other. Though the Prophet’s soul has left this world, his words are still living in our hearts.

Would you, as a Christian find it hard to agree with this Universal Declaration of Faith, Rights and Equity?

I do not believe you would disagree with it - we do not need a Euro version of already well established ideas and concepts, we don't need a Middle Eastern rehash which butchers the very intent of the Prophet pbuh,

what we want is for the world to see our truth, because they will agree with it - but the media... heck with the media and their poli-tricking.

What say thee? Would you, as a Christian find it hard to agree with this Universal Declaration of Faith, Rights and Equity? Can we stand united in this? or apart? Those who believe in nothing will fall for anything...

Scimi

subhannallah when i saw this thread i was going to post the farewell sermon and say that we have our own definition of human rights but you beat me to it
barak Allah fiq

[noraina]

The Farewell Sermon is just breath-taking, it so comprehensively lists pretty much every fundamental human right. And mind you, this was over 1400 years ago when human rights elsewhere was non-existent.

I accept that fact that many Muslim nations are in really bad conditions today - and this has nothing to do with Islam because it is these government's failure to practise the guidelines within our religion, and also maybe if Muslim nations weren't being bombed to pieces they'd actually have a chance to develop. But people forget that most nations in Europe, the Americas, whatever, who pride themselves on their human rights' records, actually have also disastrously failed.

The thing with the UN is that it isn't fair like we'd all like it to be, it selectively ignores violations in the more 'powerful' countries, turning a blind eye when it suits it.

I would say internationally, in Muslim nations or not, we have a very uneven response to human rights. I don't see any place in the world having perfect justice, it's all become very selfish and enforcers only see what they want to see.

[*charisma*]

I will also point out that Israel, although far from perfect, is miles better than its neighbors in terms of the way it treats minorities in its land- and that is the true measure of what sort of person you are, not just the measure of how you treat people who belong to your own religion and adequately agree with you within that sphere.

Right cuz you've been to it's neighboring countries and you're not fed propaganda through a screen. I've visited nearly every single Middle eastern country, and lone and behold there are nonMuslims who've been living there for years HAPPILY and with preference over their own nations. I think you live under a rock cowering in fear with only lies to entertain you.

Israel has been long known for being racist. The only reason it's in power is because that's the only way the West has access to the middle east. Otherwise, how is it that zionists all of a sudden "belong" in a country surrounded by Arab nations? And how do you justify that their DNA originates in EUROPE and not the Middle East?? And why couldnt the first world nations just give a piece of their own lands to them instead of stealing it from the Palestinians?

[Scimitar]

When we speak of human rights in Islam we really mean that these rights have been granted by God; they have not been granted by any king or by any legislative assembly. The rights granted by the kings or the legislative assemblies, can also be withdrawn in the same manner in which they are conferred. The same is the case with the rights accepted and recognized by the dictators. They can confer them when they please and withdraw them when they wish; and they can openly violate them when they like.

An example being how The (so called) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) failed to factor in the very abuse of such a propagation when Palestinians were denied their very own human rights (in the very same year - 1948) because of an illegal and unwarranted invasion of their home land in order to "return the Jews" to their homeland - which they willingly left in the first place millenia ago. This abuse of such a charter saw the Palestinians displaced and relegated to an area by the same UN and it's cronies had carved out with their imperial scalpel; this hypocrisy is warranted to be mentioned here in this very thread. The questions is - what human rights have been afforded to the Palestinians since that time? we're now in 2016 - and the Palestinians are still demanding their human rights...

...In Islam human rights have been conferred by God, no legislative assembly in the world, or any government on earth has the right or authority to make any amendment or change in the rights conferred by God. No one has the right to abrogate them or withdraw them. Nor are they the basic human rights which are conferred on paper for the sake of show and exhibition and denied in actual life when the show is over. Nor are they like philosophical concepts which have no sanctions behind them.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

My question is, how far does this "universal declaration of human rights" stretch to when Burma is also an ignored issue in the world today:



Just another example - I can go on and on.

Scimi

[greenhill]

Coming in a bit late here.. but the statement by @Timi Scar about starting in the middle..

That made me think, and although I know not a single article pertaining to the rights, my mind asked why these rights had to be put in writing. It is for appearances sake also. After all, some of the members were slave nations, Aristocrats and serfs. And took that system with them eherever they went. Their own record sucks. These treaties are for show. Often done in spite of the deen. To make it enforceable to carry out transactions that contravene the Lord's wishes.

To sideline the education of the real purpose of life through modern sciences.. so liked to be believed, indoctrination to the system is what I see.

There can't be charity. The rich get richer and the poor... they? What about them?

Is this the system?


:peace:

[cooterhein]

Coming in a bit late here.. but the statement by @Timi Scar about starting in the middle..

That made me think, and although I know not a single article pertaining to the rights, my mind asked why these rights had to be put in writing.

:peace:

As best I can tell, the purpose was to achieve a global consensus on universal moral obligations. And to a certain extent, a consensus on the base assertions that should be the groundwork for international law.

I don't believe it was ever supposed to be an alternate history of slavery and colonialism, nor was it supposed to whitewash anything. It was supposed to be an effort at achieving some universal consensus pertaining to morality. Much of what Western nations have done does not measure up to that standard, and it is by that standard that we know we needed to improve (and did, in some ways). But a pretty good handful of Islamic countries weren't even willing to agree to the universal standard that everyone else was trying to get on board with. That's a problem.

[cooterhein]

Yeah at this point, I don't blame them for wanting to kill all "jews",

I normally like to try and say things like "I respect your opinion," but of course I can't respect this. Everyone, and I mean everyone, should blame them for wanting to kill all the Jews. More to the point, they're in no position to kill all the Jews, they are powerless and they're still doing this. The only logical thing to do in this type of situation is to say and do things that will better their situation, this does the opposite of that. Perhaps if you did blame them, even a little bit, you would start to see how some of what they suffer is deserved, and is in fact their fault. Perhaps not "their" on an individual level or a collectivist sense, of course, this may be more appropriately directed at those in leadership who saw fit to make these types of things the officially stated positions of a governing body. (Come to think of it though, these people were elected and to a certain extent it does represent the popular will of the people).

There's no justification for anything that they've done. THere's no justification for the apartheid wall. THere's no justification for jailing children. THere's no justification for cutting off water and electrical supplies. There's no justification for bombing schools and hospitals. And there's no such thing as "equal rights." Stop being delusional.

There is some justification for quite a bit of this, after all we're dealing with an occupied people-group that's trying to suicide-bomb their way out of their situation while also trying to be recognized as a proper state.

There is a certain amount of similarity between this situation and South African apartheid, but only to a certain point. For example, Jews in Israel are not colonizing in a proper sense, they are returning to a land that they lost long ago. Palestinian Arabs should be familiar with this concept, they talk about the Right of Return all the time, and if they do ever get to return they won't take kindly to being called colonizers. South Africa though, that was a true and proper colonial situation.
As another example, Palestinian Arabs are a very near neighbor to Israel that poses a clear and existential threat. Lots of rockets, lone wolf attacks, intifadas, and especially suicide bombings, not to mention the official and long-standing position of their governing bodies calling for the extermination of all Jews and the obliteration of the Jewish state. The anti-apartheid movement did get a bit more violent toward the end, so there is some basis for similarity, but they were responsible for zero suicide bombings. And the anti-apartheid movement was tied to communism up to a certain point, so that qualified as an existential threat, but then the Soviet Union collapsed and changed that whole situation partway through.
Just one more example- the apartheid situation in South Africa was universal across an entire country, whereas Gaza along with Judea and Samaria are not properly within the Jewish state, they are governed by external authorities. To a certain extent, it's a matter between neighbors rather than a matter between countrymen, although there certainly are plenty of Israeli Palestinian countrymen we can also talk about in an entirely separate category. When comparing countrymen in Israel proper to the countrymen within South Africa under apartheid, Israel comes out looking very favorable. There are more opportunities for comparison when you go outside of Israel proper, however just the fact that you leave the recognized borders of a country muddies the comparisons a lot. Imagine if South Africa had found itself at war with a separatist movement that no longer wanted to be South African, or if Botswana had gone to war with them, suicide bombers and all, with a stated goal of killing all South Africans. That would be an entirely different situation, and when you're at war with an enemy external to your borders that won't stop with suicide bombers and refuses to compromise on the stated goal of genocide, you aren't nearly as obligated to take good care of these people as you are when they're clearly within your borders and are in fact your countrymen.

[cooterhein]

One more thing to add: I'm wondering if this is a normal thing, for every conceivable topic to make its way back to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

[Scimitar]

As best I can tell, the purpose was to achieve a global consensus on universal moral obligations. And to a certain extent, a consensus on the base assertions that should be the groundwork for international law.

I don't believe it was ever supposed to be an alternate history of slavery and colonialism, nor was it supposed to whitewash anything. It was supposed to be an effort at achieving some universal consensus pertaining to morality. Much of what Western nations have done does not measure up to that standard, and it is by that standard that we know we needed to improve (and did, in some ways). But a pretty good handful of Islamic countries weren't even willing to agree to the universal standard that everyone else was trying to get on board with. That's a problem.

Bro, listen to me - you are from the west so you will be familiar with this saying: "If it aint broken, don't try to fix it"... this so called universal declaration hogwash is so convoluted and compromise that anyone can abuse it to further imperial gain.

You need to understand that Muslims are smart, intelligent, morally sound and a people of integrity - something the west can seriously take a BIG lesson in.

Ok?

One more thing to add: I'm wondering if this is a normal thing, for every conceivable topic to make its way back to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

It's one heck of an issue which shows the bigotry and hypocrisy of the very same ideal you claim to uphold - we are showing you how you are doing it wrong - and until you recognise this FACT we cannot let you gloss over it, ok??? Good... please tell me about Burma, or did your western media gloss over that too?

And why, may I ask, did you ignore my replies to you? do you feel out of your depth when you read my posts?

Must I now copy paste them here on page two to show you how you are ignoring real dissemination of your oh so flawed premises?

You can't choose who you reply to, I thought you was here for a discussion, and not to choose who you pick your fights with???

Bring your A game.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

We by default give non Muslims who live in our lands freedom to live how they like, worship who they like and even govern their own affairs according to their faith... didn't you know this? A Dhimmi (non Muslim) would pay less tax than a Muslim in Muslims lands - they are afforded protection, and have lived for over a thousand years among us with no issue at all.

Even Umar RA the second khaliph of Islam was invited by the Jews of Jerusalem to govern it - he didn't take it by force... but i guess they do not teach this in the USA.

You cite Syria, Egypt, Iran, etc in the next... I'll explain to you how:

Look bro, no offence but WIKI is not a reliable source for anythin, but I'll humour you anyway,

Syria - Yazidi's Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc lived side by side for millenia... they did so also in the other nations you mention. How awake are you to real world history? Is you version of history propagated only from one arm? the western? or do you study the comparatives?

I'm trying to gage whether you are indoctrinated or awake and can fathom what a comparative is - and since you are asking for us to do comparatives here - I do wonder if you are capable of doing these yourself? and if not - must I then take things slow with you, like a teacher and student type slow? step by step...

Egypt - coptic Christians sided with Muslims when the Christian emperor of Rome - heracles - broke his treaty with Muslims... those truthful coptics kept their word, and Muslims honoured them for their support.

I gather you do not know about this - and granted this is the first example - if you remain unaware of it - I feel we should start here and I can lead you through the comparatives in history step by step until you realise - you beed duped by the western arm of lies, and thuse was unable to measure any truth.

I will not feed your bias - I will only give you the truth, whether you like it, or don't like it - although not liking truth is very counter productive to your intended reason for making this thread.

Let's move onto Iran... what example are you citing? I see nothing Iran has done wrong in centuries - do you know the last time Iran invaded any country? over two centuries ago... when was the last time your nation invaded another? a few weeks ago? yesterday? Please understand - Iran is a diverse nation with Muslims, Christians, Jews, and even Zoroastrians living there side by side even today - what are they indoctrinating you with exactly? You won't hear a Christian or Jew or Zoroastrian in Iran complain of "unfair treatment" I can tell you that.

Shall we move onto Iraq? Or Sudan next? Or Libya? Or how about the USA's next intended target? Lebanon? Please tell me which? I can seriously open the gates to each of these and go step by step, through the comparative historical process from ancient times right up to modern day... will you be willing to engage?

Which Muslims countries have you been to? I'm honestly curious. Or is this the media you cite as "example"??? Please do answer me - because I've been to many Muslim nations in my time and I can honestly say, I was also duped by the long arm of the media and western spin.

Have you heard of BBC Journalist Yvonne Ridley? She was captured by the Taliban, and imprisoned - taken good care of - her own words, and when she was released, she decided to study the Qur'an and Islam and while in the UK, under no compulsion or threat - she embraced the faith and is a Muslim now for over a decade - this, after 911 media nonsense. She was a true journalist, one who did not sell out - go check her story out for more clarification of western spin and media indoctrinate lies.

You owe it to yourself with your hubris in tow.

First of all you will not find Muslims abbreviating Jesus pbuh to Jes, or anything of the sort - His name is Muhammad and it means "most praised/beloved" you can find in Songs of Solomon 5:16 with the added IM at the end of his name as a suffix of respect - so honour your own holy book and address him as such if you will, but no more mo.

The word Muslim, means "One who submits their will to the Creator, God" ... guess what? Abraham was a Muslim, so was Isaac and Ishmael, and all the prophets stemming from the line if Isaac too - and so was Jesus pbuh who said "I of my own will do nothing, but with the will of the father (God)".

Want me to quote more of your scripture ??? see i'm not only verses in the comparatives from history, but religion as well, particularly the Abrahamic traditions.

When you come here with an "us vs them" attitude, I find it truly misplaced.

Look, I want you to realise something ok? Together, our two faith groups constitute more than half of the worlds populus. There can be no "peace" unless we reconcile what our faiths have taught us.

Jesus pbuh said "Hear O Israel - the Lord, God, is ONE, and you know Mark 12:31 don't you? "Love thy neighbour as you love your self" ???

Imam Ali said "none of you truly believe until you love for your brother what you love for yourself", he was asked "Is that my brother in Islam?" he replied "No, your brother in humanity".

The Prophet pbuh also said the same. Can you do comparatives?

I've also been to Turkey, where east meets west in more than just geography... Turkey makes me giggle.

It's a compromised nation headed off by the Donmeh... do you know what that means? Look, if you don't, then you are (with respect) quite green around the ears and this shows with your line of questioning.

Please do show me that I am not wasting my time. So far I'm beginning to suspect that I am.

For the record, I have Christian friends whom consider me their brother and I consider them mine. We built our relationship based on what our holy books tell us and you know what? Your US vs THEM attitude doesn't work for me.

I'm waiting for you to prove me wrong,

God bless,

Scimi

EDIT: if you wish to discuss the modern events of todays era - you will have to start at the beginning. This is how I start, not in the middle like a "choose your own adventure" book from the eighties, ok?

As for ISIS: we do not recognise them as people of our faith, but extremists who take lives of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Yazidi's, etc for the very agencies they work for - Sempre Fe is alive and kicking, blackwater is just one example, and I can inundate you with many, enough to get you to change your narrative.

Don't ignore me.

Scimi

[cooterhein]

We by default give non Muslims who live in our lands freedom to live how they like,

Oh that's good news, that means I can go to Mecca and invite Muslims to become Christians.

Oh wait, it's illegal for me to do that in Saudi Arabia? And wait just another minute, non-Muslims aren't even allowed to be in Mecca? Seriously, an entire city that's completely off limits for everyone except Muslims? That's lovely.

Ok then, if I can't do that I'll just apply for Saudi citizenship and live in the land with all the freedom that non-Muslim dual citizens get to enjoy there...hold the phone, I can't even do that? Seriously?

All right now, what just happened to all that "live how you like" stuff that you were promising? I get to live how I like, except....not allowed to evangelize on behalf of Christianity, as Jesus commanded. It was a pretty important command to. And that's just the start of it in every Muslim country, the other stuff varies from place to place.

A Dhimmi (non Muslim) would pay less tax than a Muslim in Muslims lands - they are afforded protection, and have lived for over a thousand years among us with no issue at all.

The term Dhimmi (and with it dhimmitude) was coined in 1982 by then-Lebanese President Bachir Gemayel. One of the distinctive things about his presidency was his insistence that his country's large ethnically-Arab minority of Orthodox Christians should be able to freely practice their religion, and that Lebanon should remain a true homeland of Christianity just as much as for Islam.

He was assassinated. I would call that an incident. Wouldn't you? And that's just a recent example of a really bad incident in the recent past that's directly tied to the term you introduced. Introduce another term, and I bet we'll find out about some more incidents. Go right ahead, I'm waiting.

Even Umar RA the second khaliph of Islam was invited by the Jews of Jerusalem to govern it - he didn't take it by force... but i guess they do not teach this in the USA.

To be honest, we don't learn much of anything about any caliphs in US public schools. That's a valid criticism of our education system- and I'm from the Chicago area, where there's a higher concentration of Muslims than anywhere else in the US. We should really get on that.

Look bro, no offence but WIKI is not a reliable source for anythin, but I'll humour you anyway,

The facts and figures that land there come from reputable external sources, Wiki just makes them super easy to get to. If you're looking for something from The Economist, for example, you'll probably have to register an account and log in (although that's free, and I have done it). People dump the charts and data on Wiki, though, and then I'm able to throw a link your way that doesn't require a login. Granted though, I could have put in a little more effort to include non-Wiki sources. That was just a bit lazy on my part.

Syria - Yazidi's Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc lived side by side for millenia... they did so also in the other nations you mention. How awake are you to real world history? Is you version of history propagated only from one arm? the western? or do you study the comparatives?

By "the comparatives," do you mean the blog posts of Palestinians who claim that Daesh was created through a conspiracy between the US and Israel? I've seen a bit of that, yes. I said that claim was patently absurd, then I was told I was misbehaving when I stated that.

I'm trying to gage whether you are indoctrinated or awake and can fathom what a comparative is - and since you are asking for us to do comparatives here - I do wonder if you are capable of doing these yourself?

I'm capable of a lot of things.

and if not - must I then take things slow with you, like a teacher and student type slow? step by step...

Evidently, one of those things involves being talked down to....

Egypt - coptic Christians sided with Muslims when the Christian emperor of Rome - heracles - broke his treaty with Muslims... those truthful coptics kept their word, and Muslims honoured them for their support.

On the other hand, Coptic Christians currently fear for their safety, and the Coptic Pope is the single religious leader in the world most at risk of assassination.

Are you curious to know if Orthodox Christians agree with this rosy assessment? Kindly take a look at this OrthodoxWiki under the heading "Persecution of Coptic Orthodox Christians" and we will find out if this page says there's nothing to see here, we are living here just fine without incident.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Persecution_of_Coptic_Orthodox_Christians
Apparently the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah was responsible for persecuting Coptic Christians, and the Crusades (acknowledged as the product of ill-advised Catholic aggression) wound up being a bad time for the Copts, despite their non-aggression.

I will acknowledge that in the long history of Egypt, there have been some fairly good times between Christians and Muslims. But that is all I'm going to acknowledge.

I gather you do not know about this - and granted this is the first example - if you remain unaware of it - I feel we should start here and I can lead you through the comparatives in history step by step until you realise - you beed duped by the western arm of lies, and thuse was unable to measure any truth.

Oh good, I'm so glad you told me I've been duped by western lies and am unable to measure any truth. Said no one ever.

Look, I appreciate that you're trying to get some points across and share your perspective, but there are better ways to go about doing it. For starters, all of them.

Let's move onto Iran... what example are you citing? I see nothing Iran has done wrong in centuries - do you know the last time Iran invaded any country? over two centuries ago... when was the last time your nation invaded another? a few weeks ago? yesterday? Please understand - Iran is a diverse nation with Muslims, Christians, Jews, and even Zoroastrians living there side by side even today - what are they indoctrinating you with exactly? You won't hear a Christian or Jew or Zoroastrian in Iran complain of "unfair treatment" I can tell you that.

I am aware of the great diversity in the rather enormous country that is Iran, I am also aware that it's been an Islamic state under Sharia law only since 1979, and it was a very different place before that. I also know about the US-organized coup in 1953 and the horrible treatment of Iran over the course of several decades in the interest of political gamesmanship. That was some BS. Iran has good reason to go on with feelings of animosity toward the US.

I will also point out that in the aftermath of the Grand Mosque Seizure in 1979, one of the very first things the newly-minted Islamic revolutionary leader Khomeini did was to blame a nefarious plot between the US and Israel for the greatest tragedy in the entire history of Islam. Because of his inflammatory claims, four US embassies were burned and angry mobs got busy in eight different Islam-majority countries, including some of the closest allies that the US has.

Shall we move onto Iraq? Or Sudan next? Or Libya? Or how about the USA's next intended target? Lebanon? Please tell me which? I can seriously open the gates to each of these and go step by step, through the comparative historical process from ancient times right up to modern day... will you be willing to engage?

Sure I'm willing to engage, I'm sort of willing if you're able to engage with people while treating them as equals though....the way you're doing it right now, it makes me wonder where the eggplant emoji is.

Which Muslims countries have you been to? I'm honestly curious.

The Republic of Guinea in West Africa. It used to be more Muslim than it currently is, it's as corrupt as it ever was and only slightly less poor since I was a kid and my family was there. On the bright side, that is a country in which Christians and Muslims are able to live in relative peace.

I also have a sister whose family is living in Saudi Arabia, and I've met one of their neighbors. This has led to some extra attention that I've been paying to Saudi history, the Saudi royal family (who I've developed a large amount of respect for), the misadventures of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (who I despise, given that his life and work is the closest historical cognate to Daesh and the direct inspiration for what they do), and somewhat surprisingly it's helped me to discover and admire Prince Turki, who's responsible for the region they live in. He's forward-thinking and very good at what he does.

Or is this the media you cite as "example"??? Please do answer me - because I've been to many Muslim nations in my time and I can honestly say, I was also duped by the long arm of the media and western spin.

Well, I don't like Fox News, there are certain people I trust on CNN but only a few, and I miss al-Jazeera America. It never really caught on, and that was too bad. I have been assessing the evolving thought process of Sam Harris lately (although he's not a newsman), and he comes from combined areas of expertise that allow his to form arguments carefully and to be detailed and thorough in his analysis....I guess that's who I've been looking at lately. And I know what you're thinking, why is a Christian looking to a prominent atheist who has virtually no respect for any religion? And my answer is, that might be your answer to the question about comparatives.

Have you heard of BBC Journalist Yvonne Ridley? She was captured by the Taliban, and imprisoned - taken good care of - her own words, and when she was released, she decided to study the Qur'an and Islam and while in the UK, under no compulsion or threat - she embraced the faith and is a Muslim now for over a decade - this, after 911 media nonsense. She was a true journalist, one who did not sell out - go check her story out for more clarification of western spin and media indoctrinate lies.

I had not heard about here, I will check that out. While I'm doing that, would you be able to track down movies like "This Is Not a Film," "We are Half of the Iranian Population," or "My Tehran for Sale"? Like you say, Iran is a very diverse place and these represent some of the diversity that is banned within its country of origin.

You owe it to yourself with your hubris in tow.

Tow this.

First of all you will not find Muslims abbreviating Jesus pbuh to Jes, or anything of the sort

In fairness though, Jesus is really easy to spell. The name of your prophet can and has been spelled at least three different ways, but there is just one way in which people sometimes shorten it. Although I will acknowledge that it does connote a lack of reverence for the man.

The word Muslim, means "One who submits their will to the Creator, God"

A Muslim is someone who adheres to the Five Pillars and to the basic set of beliefs laid out in the Shahada.

... guess what? Abraham was a Muslim, so was Isaac and Ishmael, and all the prophets stemming from the line if Isaac too - and so was Jesus pbuh

None of them were Muslims, they were Jews and Islam was a religion that did not exist at that time. And then Jesus started Christianity, a religion that mainly focuses on worshiping Him, which is to say Jesus. Does that sound like something a Muslim would do?

who said "I of my own will do nothing, but with the will of the father (God)".

Then I suppose it was with the will of the father (God) that Jesus started a major world religion that has a primary goal of getting people to worship Him, which is to say Jesus.

Want me to quote more of your scripture ??? see i'm not only verses in the comparatives from history, but religion as well, particularly the Abrahamic traditions.

I'm very impressed.

When you come here with an "us vs them" attitude, I find it truly misplaced.

Islam, compared to all the other major world religions, is objectively the most guilty of being "us vs them." Although I will acknowledge that Christianity isn't exactly at the other end of the spectrum.

Look, I want you to realise something ok? Together, our two faith groups constitute more than half of the worlds populus. There can be no "peace" unless we reconcile what our faiths have taught us.

Sounds like we need some universal principles that we can all agree on, together. Which brings us back to the original purpose of this thread, namely, what is the matter with the Islamic nations that refused to get with the program?

I think I'm going to end my post there. I did read the rest of what you wrote and I thank you for it, I don't have much to add to what remains though and this feels like a good stopping point.

[cooterhein]

Bro, listen to me - you are from the west so you will be familiar with this saying: "If it aint broken, don't try to fix it"... this so called universal declaration hogwash is so convoluted and compromise that anyone can abuse it to further imperial gain.

Scimi

If it's hogwash, then why did the Cairo declaration restate most of it? They basically recreated the same sort of thing, but with some Islamic editing.

If you're going to call the UN effort hogwash, then in your mind the Cairo declaration must seem like hogwash with some Islamic sauce drizzled on it.

[cooterhein]

By the way, this is what Islamic sauce look like.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/wp-conte...a-20140331.jpg
Oh yes, it's halal.

[Scimitar]

Oh that's good news, that means I can go to Mecca and invite Muslims to become Christians.

Oh wait, it's illegal for me to do that in Saudi Arabia? And wait just another minute, non-Muslims aren't even allowed to be in Mecca? Seriously, an entire city that's completely off limits for everyone except Muslims? That's lovely.

Ok then, if I can't do that I'll just apply for Saudi citizenship and live in the land with all the freedom that non-Muslim dual citizens get to enjoy there...hold the phone, I can't even do that? Seriously?

Can I go and preach in the vatican? NO. What you saying ????

The term Dhimmi (and with it dhimmitude) was coined in 1982 by then-Lebanese President Bachir Gemayel.

Nonsense, had to cut your waffle short:

The Prophet is reported to have said: “He who hurts a Dhimmi (non Muslim) hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.” (Reported by At -Tabarani in Al-Awsat with good chain of narrators.)

To be honest, we don't learn much of anything about any caliphs in US public schools. That's a valid criticism of our education system- and I'm from the Chicago area, where there's a higher concentration of Muslims than anywhere else in the US. We should really get on that.

Got that right.

The facts and figures that land there come from reputable external sources, Wiki just makes them super easy to get to. If you're looking for something from The Economist, for example, you'll probably have to register an account and log in (although that's free, and I have done it). People dump the charts and data on Wiki, though, and then I'm able to throw a link your way that doesn't require a login. Granted though, I could have put in a little more effort to include non-Wiki sources. That was just a bit lazy on my part.

If you think you can weasel your way out of being a WIKI monkey then think again - I'm also on WIKI and I have come to realise that it is editable by any monkey, and that makes it non-credible - why do I believe you are ingenuine, oh it must be because you are trying to prove WIKI is a source of real information... meanwhile Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have much to say about the following:

By "the comparatives," do you mean the blog posts of Palestinians who claim that Daesh was created through a conspiracy between the US and Israel? I've seen a bit of that, yes. I said that claim was patently absurd, then I was told I was misbehaving when I stated that.

This is where you show your bias is born of ignorance:

Edward Snowden, who is of WIKILEAKS fame exposed it... why don't you do your research before you spew your idiotic stupidity on to this forum? Not just him, but also Julian Assange - both of whom now fear for their lives and have to run from the west and take asylum in non western nations.

Dude, you are pathetic.

I'm capable of a lot of things.

Evidently, one of those things involves being talked down to....

On the other hand, Coptic Christians currently fear for their safety, and the Coptic Pope is the single religious leader in the world most at risk of assassination.

Really now? :D Coptic Christians still existing in a majority Muslim nation is proof that they are not killed off by the so called "Moozlums" your CNN/FOX keep throwin at us, two of the worlds worst news agencies to date.

Further. I add at least the LA Times had the good sense to recognise the fact in which Egyptian Coptics and Muslims alike stant together in solidarity against the very likes of ISIS who aim to destabilise the region - you know? the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service - whose motto is "by Deception thou Shalt do War" - but ignore this in lieu of your bias, go on - prove to us you can turn that "other cheek" in ignorance.

I will acknowledge that in the long history of Egypt, there have been some fairly good times between Christians and Muslims. But that is all I'm going to acknowledge.

Nice back up statement lol, if Muslims wanted the minority Coptics dead, it wouldn't be a problem. Yet - they are alive and kicking. Ever been to Egypt? Ever met a Coptic? You wouldn't know the difference between a Coptic and a Muslim if you did see one, sheesh.

Oh good, I'm so glad you told me I've been duped by western lies and am unable to measure any truth. Said no one ever.

Look, I appreciate that you're trying to get some points across and share your perspective, but there are better ways to go about doing it. For starters, all of them.

Do not concentrate on the delivery - focus on the message, or this becomes nothing but a character assasination attempt by you, which proves you are unable to actually debate.

If I call you an hypocrite - I give you bloody good reasons for it. Which you haven't debunked yet. Your problem is, you don't know how much of an ass you are making yourself out to be, whilst trying to point the finger in my direction. Unbelievable.

I

am aware of the great diversity in the rather enormous country that is Iran, I am also aware that it's been an Islamic state under Sharia law only since 1979, and it was a very different place before that. I also know about the US-organized coup in 1953 and the horrible treatment of Iran over the course of several decades in the interest of political gamesmanship. That was some BS. Iran has good reason to go on with feelings of animosity toward the US.

The why bring up Iran in the first place? You now doing a U Turn because you got turned over... you HAVE TO DO A U TURN. Admit it. Look dude, you're not doing this whole debate any justice and are only showing yourself to bring a bias in your posts when you claim Iran is one thing in one post and then when you been plucked, you retract... sheesh, not good for you is it?

I will also point out that in the aftermath of the Grand Mosque Seizure in 1979, one of the very first things the newly-minted Islamic revolutionary leader Khomeini did was to blame a nefarious plot between the US and Israel for the greatest tragedy in the entire history of Islam. Because of his inflammatory claims, four US embassies were burned and angry mobs got busy in eight different Islam-majority countries, including some of the closest allies that the US has.

May I now turn the tables and show you how the very West you claim is all about Human Rights carpet bombed Iraq under the pretense of WMD's which never existed? I can throw much BIGGER examples here to prove your OP premise of "Universal Human Rights" into the bin along with the million dead Iraqi civilians which were murdered in cold blood in the opening nights of that attack... want me to? Of course you don't because you end up looking like a wet rag.

Sure I'm willing to engage, I'm sort of willing if you're able to engage with people while treating them as equals though....the way you're doing it right now, it makes me wonder where the eggplant emoji is.

I do not bend my personality to your will, neither do I ask you to bend yours to mine - if you cannot stomach the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I like it hot.

The Republic of Guinea in West Africa. It used to be more Muslim than it currently is, it's as corrupt as it ever was and only slightly less poor since I was a kid and my family was there. On the bright side, that is a country in which Christians and Muslims are able to live in relative peace.

Is it the only country? What about Syria before the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service started their nonsense under the pretense that Al Assad was being a tyrant to his own people, that character assasination attempt doesn't go over my head - why does it yours? Are you really this ignorant of what goes on that you seek only the narrative which suits your bias? Play honest, or get played out.

I also have a sister whose family is living in Saudi Arabia, and I've met one of their neighbors. This has led to some extra attention that I've been paying to Saudi history, the Saudi royal family (who I've developed a large amount of respect for), the misadventures of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (who I despise, given that his life and work is the closest historical cognate to Daesh and the direct inspiration for what they do), and somewhat surprisingly it's helped me to discover and admire Prince Turki, who's responsible for the region they live in. He's forward-thinking and very good at what he does.

The Saudi Royal Family are absolute pawns for the west, of course you'd say that. The tyranny the subject the Muslims to in their underground torture chambers is something you obviously know nothing about.

Nor do you know the history of Charles Hempher and what he did as a spy for the UK to foment destabilisation of the region and overthrow the Ottoman Khalifate is also something you obviously know nothing about. As for you having no respect for the Wahhabi's - you're hatred is misplaced, but what can I expect from a pawn for the west?

Well, I don't like Fox News, there are certain people I trust on CNN but only a few, and I miss al-Jazeera America. It never really caught on, and that was too bad. I have been assessing the evolving thought process of Sam Harris lately (although he's not a newsman), and he comes from combined areas of expertise that allow his to form arguments carefully and to be detailed and thorough in his analysis....I guess that's who I've been looking at lately. And I know what you're thinking, why is a Christian looking to a prominent atheist who has virtually no respect for any religion? And my answer is, that might be your answer to the question about comparatives.

Al Jazeera was an independent News Agency free from the western control but was shut down for a year post 911 and then reopened with "western interests" at hand, of course you miss it. Go learn what happened to Al Jazeera before it fell into the wrong hands, and how.

I had not heard about here, I will check that out. While I'm doing that, would you be able to track down movies like "This Is Not a Film," "We are Half of the Iranian Population," or "My Tehran for Sale"? Like you say, Iran is a very diverse place and these represent some of the diversity that is banned within its country of origin.
Tow this.

So you've gone from unreliable news agencies to movies now? dude, what drugs are you on?

In fairness though, Jesus is really easy to spell. The name of your prophet can and has been spelled at least three different ways, but there is just one way in which people sometimes shorten it. Although I will acknowledge that it does connote a lack of reverence for the man.

Your lack of respect will not be tolerated again, and ban hammers will be dished out - be careful where you tread... Have you ever in your life seen or known a Muslim to disrespect Jesus pbuh? Do we draw cartoons of him? Do we slander him? do we abuse him? NO... but your Christians do all of that and then some when it comes to our beloved Prophet Muhammad pbuh, who we hold dearer to our hearts than our own parents... your lack of shame shows exactly how morally compromised you really are - yet you preach "universal human rights" lol, which makes you an hypocrite.

A Muslim is someone who adheres to the Five Pillars and to the basic set of beliefs laid out in the Shahada.

None of them were Muslims, they were Jews and Islam was a religion that did not exist at that time. And then Jesus started Christianity, a religion that mainly focuses on worshiping Him, which is to say Jesus. Does that sound like something a Muslim would do?

If you want to learn how to bake bread - you go to a baker, not a candy floss maker - and you are a candy floss maker attempting to teach bakers how to bake bread? get real

Muslim means - one show submits their will to the Creator. This is the first instance of cotext which precedes the context and you can't even tell the difference between the two, this is very evident. All the Prophets from Adam to Muhammad with Jesus included were Muslims (peace be upon them) and this coming from "the baker" not a candy floss salesman. Keep your sugary BS to yourself, we prefer real sustenance.

Then I suppose it was with the will of the father (God) that Jesus started a major world religion that has a primary goal of getting people to worship Him, which is to say Jesus.

Nope, it was the will of Paul the AntiChrist who hijacked and contorted, twisted and absolutely minced Jesus' intended word (pbuh), you know, that false prophet spoken of in your holy book???? Paul, is that false prophet.

Islam, compared to all the other major world religions, is objectively the most guilty of being "us vs them." Although I will acknowledge that Christianity isn't exactly at the other end of the spectrum.

Sorry but you sound quite ingorant of real history... even during the Crusades the Muslims protected the Eastern Christians who were under their protection while the Roman (western) arm of trinitarian (read as Mithraic origin - paganism) decided it wanted to invade the "holy land" to take it back - how can one take back that which was never theirs? Oh yes... the Roman, before Jesus pbuh controlled the region... it was an imperial directive - guess what? I draw parallels to todays western imperial agenda :D And you have no leg left to stand on.

Sounds like we need some universal principles that we can all agree on, together. Which brings us back to the original purpose of this thread, namely, what is the matter with the Islamic nations that refused to get with the program?

You are mistaken, I do not support your idea of "universal hypocrisy" as per your OP and the resulted responses from the Muslims do not agree with you either.

If you want to play ball, then first admit your "west" is doing this ALL WRONG, because they are hypocrites who vye for the satanic spin on such a narrative.

I think I'm going to end my post there. I did read the rest of what you wrote and I thank you for it, I don't have much to add to what remains though and this feels like a good stopping point.

Oh what? You're not gonna entertain me with more nonsense? Man I was just gonna pull the popcorn outta my microwave too, dang.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

If it's hogwash, then why did the Cairo declaration restate most of it? They basically recreated the same sort of thing, but with some Islamic editing.

If you're going to call the UN effort hogwash, then in your mind the Cairo declaration must seem like hogwash with some Islamic sauce drizzled on it.

I don't disagree, we have our Prophet Muhammad pbuh's final sermon which is perfectly understood by us and is the best underestanding of what "human rights" are, we do not need a political right and left version to foment yet - more tension. LOL... we're not ignorants, we're a people of integrity, and the political circus is nowt but a game of liars. As is proven in this thread by many here, yourself included.

Scimi

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Do not concentrate on the delivery - focus on the message, or this becomes nothing but a character assasination attempt by you, which proves you are unable to actually debate.

If I call you an hypocrite - I give you bloody good reasons for it. Which you haven't debunked yet. Your problem is, you don't know how much of an ass you are making yourself out to be, whilst trying to point the finger in my direction. Unbelievable.

Why don't you drop the insults, stop boasting about your own knowledge and concentrate on the content of the discussion?

Peace

[kritikvernunft]

In the One True God we trust, and in nothing else. Therefore, everything else must be viewed with varying degrees of suspicion.

To clarify, these countries are generally known as bad actors when it comes to human rights, the treatment of women, and religious freedom, but they went out of their way to protect Islam and uphold inequities in the name of Islamic sharia.

"Bad actors"? Do you mean that they did not sign onto the feminist agenda?

Concerning Islamic sharia, I am a great fan of the law of retaliation, the Qasis, i.e. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

The moral status of hostile acts is entirely predicated on the existence of preceding hostile acts, going in the opposite direction. In other words, justice is understood to be an invariant of the history of a set of persons, subject to a conservation law, i.e. the conservation of justice. That is entirely compatible with Noether's theorem in physics. The Qasis is certainly a superior legal theorem. That is most likely why it is part of Divine Law.

Should they have all gotten on board with the Universal Declaration?

Why would they do that? In order to proceed with the wholesale importation of feminism? I do not negotiate with the feminists, and I hope that they will never either. The only thing that is universal about feminism, is that it is universally hated. In that sense, there is nothing to negotiate about.

Is the Cairo document something that you're sympathetic toward, or do you view it as a mistake, an embarrassment, or something that is used to prop up evil in the name of Islam?

Well, there is already the Quran and the Sunnah. So, I wonder why anybody would need another document to rehash basically the same point of view. I personally believe that this kind of documents are simply redundant.

what do you want me to know about either of these documents and about a particular kind of Islamic approach to this sort of issue?

As you know, the system of marriage has pretty much been abolished in the USA, by the feminists. This means that generational reproduction has mostly been dismantled. In other words, your society will have a hard time making it even till the year 2100. If this was not bad enough, the sheer act of having sex is now also being abolished in countries like the USA. That is obviously the next step, after having generalized the practice of having sex mostly during drunken one-night stands. Sex outside the context of even just some kind of relationship, with at least a semblance of some kind of permanency, is utterly meaningless. It does not even have any pretense of emotional value. It is even dangerous, now that the prevalence of STD is going through the roof in the USA. You could as well not have any sex at all. Long live your fantastic feminist paradise.

Therefore, there is nothing to sort.

Feel free to live and die out as feminists, just like the dinosaurs possibly did. You are dead end. You are obviously going to lose the generational race against time. It is game over for you guys. It is actually quite funny to see you guys crash and burn as a result of your own utterly false beliefs.

In the One True God we trust and in nothing else, and we view you guys with total suspicion, and as I have said already, there is nothing to negotiate about. We can perfectly well just let time run its course, because sheer time will reveal to everybody the truth.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

It seems so easy to blame others for the problems in the world. If only we could look at each other as being created by the same 'One God', the same God hears all our prayers. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation, and that has to mean caring for each other, despite all our differences.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all of God's creation.

Eric

[Scimitar]

Greetings,

Why don't you drop the insults, stop boasting about your own knowledge and concentrate on the content of the discussion?

Peace

Grettings,

People today are sooo sensitive, that when I point out the hypocrisy of their premise, they get rather offended instead of learning to take that criticism on the chin. Strange times we find our selves riding out... and yes, I've contributed.

Peace,

Scimi

['abd al-hakeem]

Grettings, People today are sooo sensitive, that when I point out the hypocrisy of their premise, they get rather offended instead of learning to take that criticism on the chin. Strange times we find our selves riding out... and yes, I've contributed. Peace, Scimi

two words... (fi sa bilillah) forest/trees.

Be like water my friend...

['abd al-hakeem]

Greetings, Why don't you drop the insults, stop boasting about your own knowledge and concentrate on the content of the discussion?

Peace

I'm sorry... exactly what did you contribute to the thread to warrant this opinion?

['abd al-hakeem]

One more thing to add: I'm wondering if this is a normal thing, for every conceivable topic to make its way back to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Depends on how good your critical and lateral analysis skills are...

['abd al-hakeem]

[AboBakar]

Al Diin Al Islam is above The Universal Thing .

[greenhill]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

It seems so easy to blame others for the problems in the world. If only we could look at each other as being created by the same 'One God', the same God hears all our prayers. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation, and that has to mean caring for each other, despite all our differences.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all of God's creation.

Eric

Love that. Too bad can't give rep points for that because I recently already gave :/

Already said somewhere, where one is a true muslim when one wishes for his neighbours what he would wish for himself.

Ponder on that alone or also reading into it something else; "neighbours"- and it does not differentiate. Christian, muslim, Hindu colour .. nothing. Just neighbours.

Keeping it simple, isn't that the fundamental spirit we should all have? It was formalised with the previous messages, specifically the Torah. Do unto others what you would have others do unto you.

Why does the same simple message need to be repeated again and again? Because of men's innate desire to rebel and have his own laws. But if you did the opposite, then another rule applies; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Revenge. Hence, what was Jesus's real purpose? Apart from following the traditions of the prophets, he enlightened people to a higher spiritual state of being with the concept of 'to turn the other cheek' it brought forgiveness to the table, not just revenge.

How great would that be in the modern world if the true spirit of the messages brought by prophets were actually the laws we were emulating?

Of course we will not have that. Men, more to the point, the powerful will make the law. And the law will be such that will protect their positions. There is no 'worldly' profit to operate God's Law. So they changed it. Because it is all about profits. Almost at any expense. This is definitely not God's world. It is, through media domination, Satan's world.


:peace:

[kritikvernunft]

"neighbours"- and it does not differentiate. Christian, muslim, Hindu colour .. nothing. Just neighbours.

That is Christian doctrine and certainly not Islamic. The correct version is that regardless of what your religion may be, you should not trust Jews nor Christians:

Quran 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Therefore, yes, Hindus should indeed also NOT trust (Jews nor) Christians, since they are specifically mentioned as untrustworthy. Therefore the universal religions rule is: NEVER, EVER trust a Christian. NEVER, EVER make friends with a Christian. Always treat Christians with the total distrust that they deserve. Always remember that Christian religious doctrines are in reality Satanic deceptions.


****************
****************
****************

[sister herb]

That is Christian doctrine and certainly not Islamic. The correct version is that regardless of what your religion may be, you should not trust Jews nor Christians:

Quran 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

You quote one verse from the Quran and then interpret it the way which supports your own arguments and claims. It does not convince anybody here.

[cooterhein]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein; and welcome to the forum,

I am a Catholic, so that makes both of us guests on a Muslim forum, I have found people here to be friendly and helpful over the last eleven years. As Jesus said, we must not ignore the plank in our own eye, whilst we concentrate on the speck in our brother's eye.

Eric

According to the Human Rights Index published by the Cato Institute, seen here http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or...index-2015.pdf the US is not all the way at the top of the list in terms of the Freedom Index which averages scores on personal and economic freedom. The US is number 20 on the list, with Hong Kong, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, and New Zealand taking the top spots on this particular list. That's not really impressive for the US, but it is fairly near to the top and hey, good on Mauritius for making it in at number 19 ahead of us. That's the only country in the top 20 that belongs to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation- although I will note that Hinduism claims a plurality in the country with Christianity as the largest minority, with Islam clocking in at just below 20% of the population. Still though, one OIC member is doing well.

With that being said, here's the countries all the way at the bottom of the list. Iran, DRC, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Yemen, CAF, Algeria, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Chad, KSA, Congo, Pakistan, Nigeria, Togo, Swaziland, Egypt. That's not exclusively Islamic countries, but most of those have a significant Muslim population that is causing some problems. This is how it goes every time you look at any actual, published, recognized and reviewed index or ranking. Evaluations of freedom around the world, of democracy, of human rights, it's all pretty much the same. Aligned Western nations pretty much all at the top, a handful of OIC aligned countries in the middle, and a big consistent cluster of mostly or exclusively Islamic countries at the bottom.

Speck, meet plank.

[cooterhein]

You quote one verse from the Quran and then interpret it the way which supports your own arguments and claims. It does not convince anybody here.

I wish that were true, and I'm glad to see it doesn't convince Everybody here, but I can see it's got a fair amount of traction with some people.

[muslimah_B]

That is Christian doctrine and certainly not Islamic. The correct version is that regardless of what your religion may be, you should not trust Jews nor Christians:

Quran 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Therefore, yes, Hindus should indeed also NOT trust (Jews nor) Christians, since they are specifically mentioned as untrustworthy. Therefore the universal religions rule is: NEVER, EVER trust a Christian. NEVER, EVER make friends with a Christian. Always treat Christians with the total distrust that they deserve. Always remember that Christian religious doctrines are in reality Satanic deceptions.


Since the Quran clarifies that as a matter of exception, you should -- just for this case only -- overrule your natural instinct and NOT believe that Jesus was a deceptive liar, cheat and a fraud. So, yes, I repeat that he was not, no matter how attractive it would be to believe that. You see, there is a reason why we must overrule normal logic in this case, but this reason will only be revealed in the next life. So, all of us must be patient. Ultimately, we will be duly informed as to why Jesus was NOT just a vulgar mafia criminal. He was even a prophet, even though nobody right in his mind would naturally think so. Seriously, there are totally unknown, counter-intuitive, virtually impossible, and otherwise unbelievable reasons why he was a prophet! These virtual impossibilities will be revealed not in this life, but certainly in the next one. It is part of the surprise package for new arrivals in heaven. Some day, we will finally be made to understand why, for heaven's sake why!


You see, the Quran would never deprive victims from the justice that they deserve, or make things even worse, by telling the victims that they should encourage the perpetrator to misbehave again:

Quran 5:45: In the Torah We prescribed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, an equal wound for a wound: if anyone forgoes this out of charity, it will serve as atonement for his bad deeds.

You see, faith in God sometimes means that you should believe the almost unbelievable. Mary was NOT a promiscuous **** whose adultery got her impregnated with a ******* son, who was NOT a liar, a fraud, or a deceptive mafia criminal. This is NOT the case. There is something else in play that explains it all, but this secret information will not be revealed in our current life. You would never be able to figure it out by yourself. Seriously, that would be impossible. However, in the next life, everything will become clear, because there is an absolutely valid explanation for all of that. In the meanwhile, try to remember everything that Jesus and his mother Mary were NOT, even if at first glance it may look like they were.

There is a massive difference between treating your neighbors kindly and with respect to taking them as friends.
When you take someone as a friend you turn to them, ask them for advice, for guidance, you end up being like your friend mirroring their personality, character & faith

Abu Huraira*reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “A man is upon the religion of his best friend, so let one of you look at whom he befriends.”

Source: Sunan Abu Dawud 4833

We dont take as "friends" as they have total different beliefs in place, advice & guidance from someone not a muslim could infact go against islamic values & rules, it does not mean we as muslims look down on other people or we treat others in a horrible manner, NO we still treat everyone with respect, manners and kindness no matter what faith they believe in, they are still humans regardless.

Friends have a large influence over us, and can help us or destroy us.

“And (remember) the Day when the wrong-doer (oppressor, polytheist etc.) will bite on his hand, he will say: ‘Oh! *Would that I had taken a path with the Messenger.* Ah! *Woe to me! *Would that I had never taken so-and-so as a friend! *He indeed led me astray from the Reminder (the Quran) after it had come to me.’” (Quran 25:27)

Im not responding to the last bit of what you wrote tbh i found it rather distasteful, given that your on an islamic forum, more care should be given to be more respectfull towards Isa a.s (jesus a.s) & Maryam p.b.u.h

[greenhill]

@kritikvernunft .
I am not sure where you are coming from. Perhaps you should relate my post to the OP and not my quote. Apologies for the quote but it was the quote that inspired me to the train of thoughts. About human rights. What human rights? When all prophets have been preaching to do good. So if we did as told, we'd all be better off.

Nothing territorial about it. About who did what. They all did God's bidding. Our duty is to listen and do.

New thought here, for the OP, amongst the biggest sins, like slander, causing mischief, taking unlawfully other people's property, adultery, is also oppression. Not giving a person his rights tantamounts to oppression.

Allah essentially has always put the rule in place. Only human pretend not to know. Religion is the answer to the world problem. Not the politics.


:peace:

[sister herb]

Iran, DRC, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Yemen, CAF, Algeria, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Chad, KSA, Congo, Pakistan, Nigeria, Togo, Swaziland, Egypt.

How many of those countries have enjoyed about the influence of the western humanism in the past (like being under the rule of some western country) and how many of them still are under the political, economical and/or military pressure from the democratic western countries? How many of them have low degree of freedom in the society because of this "influence of humanity" which has been (and still is) the most interesting about their natural resources or their military political position on the map? Maybe here are some other reason to their lack of freedom than only Islam.

[muslimah_B]

They only go and "help" when their interests are at stake,

Where is the help for those people and children being forced to work in the mines around Africa in horrible conditions, for minerals, diamonds etc and when they refuse troops are sent in to "keep the peace & help" NO they are told if they dont go in there they will be shot and even in one of these instances the whole "ebola" epademic started when people started rebeling and troops got sent there "to help"
It was a serious "epademic" now where is it now hardly talked about and vanished.

Where is the help for the persecuted muslims in the chinese region of Xinjiang, where they are being force fed during ramadan, beaten, killed, threatend to denounce faith or their family will be killed
Where is the help for those in the bombed regions of the middle east, the starving countries of Africa, those persecuted in Bosnia & Herzegovina, those displaced in Palestine
Where is the help for anyone being persecuted for being a paticular faith when that is part of a human right, only when it comes to muslims do people forget that and throw the "laws" out the window which they claim to uphold

They pick and choose who they want to help, why should any muslim country turn to laws set by people when the people have double standards and do not even follow their own rules for the benifit of people, its only for the benifit of their pockets and their power.
Allahs laws uphold rights for everything humans, animals & nature, not just for muslims but the whole of humanity for the benifit of our souls, not our pockets

[sister herb]

They only go and "help" when their interests are at stake,

And also, they only talk about human rights, Universal Human Rights Declaration and Geneva Conventions when it suits to their purposes.

If the human rights would to be the number one for the world politics, why it took so long time before the "western country" in the Africa met it´s end? By this I mean the Apartheid South Africa. Odd, the rulers there were originally Europeans, the Christians and surely they understood the manners of civilization and democracy. And human rights too.

If the human rights would to be number one to every western societies, why an earth the civiliazed and democratic Australia sends the refugees to Nauru and places them to the refugees camps?

Mysterious are those human rights which every democratic countries follow nowadays. ^o)

[cooterhein]

Can I go and preach in the vatican? NO. What you saying ????

I'm not aware of any law against it, long as you're in a public space. You want to go to Vatican City and try your luck?

Really now? :D Coptic Christians still existing in a majority Muslim nation is proof that they are not killed off by the so called "Moozlums" your CNN/FOX keep throwin at us, two of the worlds worst news agencies to date.

Palestinian Arabs are still alive and technically mostly well, does that mean all is well with them? Let's see if you're willing to apply the same logic there. What's going on with your spelling? That's not how Muslim is spelled, and you are one.

the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service - whose motto is "by Deception thou Shalt do War" - but ignore this in lieu of your bias, go on -

It's actually called the Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations, and the motto is

"Where no counsel is, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety." From Proverbs 11.

I'd like to point out that you're a Muslim, I'm a Christian, and you know this. Without really chasing the topic, it seems we've been talking about Jews more tan anything else, even though there aren't any Jews participating in the discussion. Just saying.

Nice back up statement lol, if Muslims wanted the minority Coptics dead, it wouldn't be a problem. Yet - they are alive and kicking.

Trust me, if the Israeli military did everything it could, every Palestinian Arab would be dead or gone inside a week. It would be even less of a problem than it is in your Egypt example.

Kindly apply the same logic sir, what does this tell us?

Ever been to Egypt? Ever met a Coptic?

I have not been to Egypt, but I have met a Coptic.

May I now turn the tables and show you how the very West you claim is all about Human Rights carpet bombed Iraq

This is a careless use of some specific terminology, as addressed here by a US general in Iraq in comments pertaining to the equally careless rhetoric of Ted Cruz.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...islamic-state/

There surely is plenty of valid criticism of US foreign policy decisions in Iraq and in the region, but you led with this little mistake. I bet you really like repeating this in exactly these terms, and you might even know it's false but you can't be bothered to make any adjustments.

I do not bend my personality to your will, neither do I ask you to bend yours to mine - if you cannot stomach the heat, get out of the kitchen.

You say this here, but you also make certain demands of me while refusing to concede anything yourself.

I like it hot.

You do have some incredibly obvious limits, and it's generally a bad idea to advertise yourself as a bull in a china shop when you are in so many ways made of glass. One name, two letters, and you lose your mind. That's just one example. You want me to have an ounce of respect for your feelings and sensibilities, you find a way to get yourself under control. You do have buttons that you don't enjoy having pushed, so don't invite something that you truly don't want.

The Saudi Royal Family are absolute pawns for the west, of course you'd say that. The tyranny the subject the Muslims to in their underground torture chambers is something you obviously know nothing about.

In general, what would be different about Saudi foreign policy if they were doing things according to your preferences?

As for you having no respect for the Wahhabi's - you're hatred is misplaced, but what can I expect from a pawn for the west?

I would be interested to know why you think the teachings of Wahhabism and the person who originated it are misunderstood. Do you disagree with the assertion that Daesh uses him as their most direct inspiration, and that they're re-enacting much of what he also did?

So you've gone from unreliable news agencies to movies now? dude, what drugs are you on?

Documentaries, actually. And how are you with comparatives, by the way?

Your lack of respect will not be tolerated again, and ban hammers will be dished out - be careful where you tread...

You said you like it hot, but I knew you didn't really mean that. You demand respect and you have threats to go with those demands, but you have none to give. Whatever is wrong with you is no small thing, and I don't care about your tolerance.

All the Prophets from Adam to Muhammad with Jesus included were Muslims

I think you know who the first Muslim really was. Is it really this common for Muslims to want to kill all the Jews and then co-opt their history as if it belongs to them? Is that the master plan?

And for now, this seems like a good place for me to stop.

[greenhill]

What you are saying @muslimah_B in parts is what kritikvernunft quoted but wrongly understood. These are the Judeo-Christian alliances we are warned against.

But... nothing wrong with being good on an individual level.


:peace:

[sister herb]

Palestinian Arabs are still alive and technically mostly well, does that mean all is well with them?

After many massacres, living under the over 60 years occupation, daily humiliations, massive military invasions, destroying their homes and fields, torturing prisoners, killing children etc, technically they are mostly well? But no problems, all the news and human rights reports about their situation must to be false because the western countries, whose have invented the Universal Human Rights Declarations support them.

I am wondering what it´s meaning to be technically well. You have broken your both legs but technically you feel well?

^o)

Believe me, if the west really would follow their own teachings about the human rights, freedom and democracy, there wouldn´t been this ongoing conflict and occupation in the land of Palestine. I am wondering why the west demands others to follow the human rights but it itself doesn´t follow them.

[muslimah_B]

What you are saying @muslimah_B in parts is what kritikvernunft quoted but wrongly understood. These are the Judeo-Christian alliances we are warned against.

But... nothing wrong with being good on an individual level.


:peace:

:) i did say that no matter who they are to be kind and good mannerd and treat them properly etc but it is best to avoid friendships on a level as such that you seek or take advice from them especially spiritual matters , as generally more time their advice goes against islamic values and beliefs, there are stronger opinions where there is no friendship allowed at all unless it is of benificial purposes
Another issue is that, SOME hate our prophets and insult them including certain aspects of Islam and being "friends" with them can take a toll on your emaan and may put doubt in your faith
Its best to avoid for certain reasons but ofcourse be courteous, polite, friendly etc :)

Here it explains it better

https://islamqa.info/en/59879

[cooterhein]

After many massacres, living under the over 60 years occupation, daily humiliations, massive military invasions, destroying their homes and fields, torturing prisoners, killing children etc, technically they are mostly well? But no problems, all the news and human rights reports about their situation must to be false because the western countries, whose have invented the Universal Human Rights Declarations support them.

I am wondering what it´s meaning to be technically well. You have broken your both legs but technically you feel well?

^o)

Believe me, if the west really would follow their own teachings about the human rights, freedom and democracy, there wouldn´t been this ongoing conflict and occupation in the land of Palestine. I am wondering why the west demands others to follow the human rights but it itself doesn´t follow them.

I think you're missing the larger point, I was not actually suggesting that the Palestinians are in fact fine. This was a little bit of a jab in response to the assertion that Coptic Christians still exist in Egypt after all these years so you see, all is well and they are just fine.

That was the larger point- that the mere continuing existence of a people-group does not always mean everything is fine. And in Egypt, the Christian minority is not fine. Yes they still exist, but that by itself doesn't mean a whole lot.

I will point out one other thing. You do realize that when Israel is assessed in terms of human rights and freedoms, it falls pretty well short of getting a perfect score, right? The shortcomings that you're pointing out are known, they are acknowledged, and it shows up in whatever they're being scored on. It's actually not a pass/fail kind of thing, it's more of a situation where different measures of multiple factors go into a composite score, usually from one to ten. Israel is not really close to a top score in anything.

It is, however, far and away the best thing going in the region. Its neighbors are just awful, the worst of the worst.

[cooterhein]

:) i did say that no matter who they are to be kind and good mannerd and treat them properly etc but it is best to avoid friendships on a level as such that you seek or take advice from them especially spiritual matters , as generally more time their advice goes against islamic values and beliefs, there are stronger opinions where there is no friendship allowed at all unless it is of benificial purposes
Another issue is that, SOME hate our prophets and insult them including certain aspects of Islam and being "friends" with them can take a toll on your emaan and may put doubt in your faith
Its best to avoid for certain reasons but ofcourse be courteous, polite, friendly etc :)

Here it explains it better

https://islamqa.info/en/59879

I understand this is some sort of deeply held religious belief for you personally, and it may be that in a Muslim-dominated country it works out better for Muslims than it does for whatever minority group you're avoiding. But when you are the minority in the country where you live, it's a good idea to be more pragmatic. This won't lead to a good outcome for you.

[Futuwwa]

Word of advice, cooterhein. If you intend to preach to Muslims about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, either stay far clear of Israel, or recognize it for the human rights violator it is, without making excuses for it. Here's some of what that vaunted declaration says:

Article 9:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 13:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Israel is in violation by having, since 1948, consistently refused to let 5 million Palestinian refugees return to their homes on Israeli-controlled territory from which they were displaced by the 1948 war. Article 13 is quoted in case you thought of invoking the usual red herring in the matter about the refugees having left of their own accord. This makes Israel one of the world's worst human rights violators. Few countries have engaged in ethnic cleansing on that scale, most modern dictatorships' human rights violations consist mainly of the suppression of dissent.

Since you apparently made a good-faith attempt at dialogue at first, I shall answer your question, despite your sanctimonious and condescending attitude. I would accept coexistence on the basis of universal compliance with the UDHR. That means, too, that all Muslims must be effectively afforded those rights by every state and polity, and that any polity that does not comply must be forced to do so by any means necessary. This includes, but is far from limited to, Israel's violation of Palestinian rights. How about it?

[muslimah_B]

I understand this is some sort of deeply held religious belief for you personally, and it may be that in a Muslim-dominated country it works out better for Muslims than it does for whatever minority group you're avoiding. But when you are the minority in the country where you live, it's a good idea to be more pragmatic. This won't lead to a good outcome for you.

Im not avoiding them, i just choose to not take them as "personal friends" who i ask for advice or guidance on spiritual matters or islamic issues or questions i may have.
Im friendly with everyone just not literal friends, many of my school friends where christians, hindus, jewish,etc im no longer "friends" with them in that sense but i am friendly and civil, i just dont take them as a friend on the level that you view "friendships" as. I would view them more as acquaintances if that makes it easier to understand.

I dont take the calling of "friends" lightly a friend to me is my companion who wishes the best for me in this life and the next, will make dua for me without me even knowing, and will remind me of Allah when i need it, will help my emaan rise when it is low 《 this is my definition of a friend.

Its just like, your a Christian (i think ?) and in certain aspects we differ in religious values/rules/laws you wouldnt go to a muslim or a jew or a hindu or a budhist or a atheist and seek advice on a spiritual matter that is close to your heart would you ? You would go to someone who shares the same religious values as you

^^^ this is all i mean by this

Me just leaving my house doesnt end up good for me lol I dont think you understand what it is actually like to be a muslim woman who covers for the sake of Allah (God) - no matter how nice we are to people or we try to just go on about our day to day lives, people will always have something to say i have been attacked, abused verbally & physically, i have had men try to attack me in crowded areas and no-one came to help me, i have had things thrown at me, been called every name under the sun,

Like honestly you speak about human rights, so where is my right to dress how i want, what right do people have to tell me not to cover or to worship my Lord how i have to, why is it that when it comes to those rights of mine they are questioned as to wether i should even be allowed to do this
Is this not part of the human rights your talking about, which we are all entitled to especially in the west

You dont seem like a stupid person, but your putting in too much value into a notion that doesnt even uphold its values or laws in the countries where these laws are meant to have the most meaning being in the west where its prided on its human rights, well those rights seem to only cater to a selected few

And even speaking of human rights which where established & set in stone during Islam through the last sermon of prophet mohammed s.a.w
Womens rights were also established and even animal rights

Now lets look at today no set in stone rights for animals anywhere, people are allowed to torture, maim, kill, hunt for sport, test on them all absolutely forbidden in Islam and have serious consequences.
Womens rights - now we have feminists forming groups due to mens desires & man made laws making women feel like dirt & slaves, also has serious consequences and can be a form of oppression.
All of these rights, every single right for everything was established and set in stone in islam and via the sharia
Allahs rules/laws are there for a reason, once people moved away from following these laws this is what we have in the world today, no country follows these as it should be.

Islam has all the answers to everything, muslims do not
When you want to look at islam look at the Quran and sunnah not the muslims

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Before I begin critiquing your post, I'd like to give you a background on myself: I have been both an atheist at one point in time and now am a Muslim. While I am happy to be an American, I'm very aware of the history of world, because I love both history and anthropology and law and am not ignorant of excesses that have been perpetrated by the First World.

I have some major problems with your premises because you seem to begin with a number of assumptions in your underlying thoughts. First, you are assuming that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is and should be desirable for all cultures equally. Well, let me inform you that the American Anthropological Association (AAA) disagrees with you on this itself as the document has been critiqued for undermining and ignoring cultural differences that exist between societies and parts of the world. I'd even go so far as to say that the document is imperialistic as it seems to follow the train of thought that inspired Rudyard Kipling to author "The White Man's Burden."

Secondly, the document's most notable critique is that it is a meaningless discourse as rights of human beings are uniquely the creation of positive law and unenforceable until they are both legislated and implemented. This is something that I think you even mention in your later post but it is something to be noted because engaging in meaningless discourse is a feel-good exercise but has little or no bearing on how to solve the inequities and injustices that happen across the globe.

Thirdly, you also seem to give the impression that you believe that the countries that signed onto the Declaration are both better in their morality and true winners of the enshrined points of the Declaration. Yet we know that is not true. Key items of the document, for example, include no torture, unfair detainment, right to trial, innocent until proven guilty. And yet in America we've had both the scandal of Guantanamo Bay detention camp and also witnessed the assassination of both U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16-year old son. Many of the First World countries that specifically championed the "no slavery" point fare no better in destroying human trafficking recorded in Amnesty International articles or even U.S.'s National Criminal Justice Service Reference.

Fourthly, Article 3 holds basically that everyone has the rights to life, liberty, and security, and yet "U.S. Dropped 23,144 Bombs on Muslim-Majority Countries in 2015." This basically reminds me of what is said in the Quran to nations that pose falsely as peace-makers yet are part of the problem: "And when it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peacemakers" (Quran 2:11).

Fifthly, I have been a vociferous critic of Daesh and their like-minded cohorts and loathe their very existence but at least they do not pretend to be something they're not; they do not say they care about human life and then do that which would signify the opposite. I'd also invite you to read "The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire" because you'll get a clearer and grayer picture than the media lets on how we operate in the world, and it is not a pretty picture.

Since I have not read the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, I will refrain from commenting on that. However, I'd say that none of the Muslim-majority countries today are a bastion of goodness or even represent Islam. While I consider Islam the highest form of egalitarian and practical system of life that when lived in its best form represents the highest good, Muslim-majority countries have largely failed in this area. What is most notable to me is that early Christians and Jews used to be all praise for early Muslims and masses of them converted simply out of seeing the high character represented in Muslims, yet today the opposite is true as Daesh and people of their ilk like Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc. have literally hijacked the conversation on Islam and are literally and figuratively driving away non-Muslims people from Islam. It is the biggest tragedy of our time that much of what remains now of "Islam" is the name and its calligraphy but without the accompanying spiritual reality and teeth of character that would inspire and invite non-Muslims to look into Islam as a curious and unbiased human being.

I don't know that there is a uniform Islamic approach, but I'd say that I'd like to leave you with one of the sayings of Prophet Muhammad's (peace and blessings be upon him): "There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm" (Ibn Majah) and "Be merciful to the people of the earth and the One above the heavens will have mercy upon you" (Sunan al-Tirmidhī). If people all over the world just followed this two hadiths (prophetic traditions), I'd say we'd have no wars, no Daesh, no terrorists, no evil, because all that would remain between any human being is mercy. My sheikh (Islamic teacher) (may Allah bless him) had a student in a recently delivered lecture said that God does not like vengeance but has given it as a last resort and expression of making right a wrong but that there would never have been any need of this should all human beings treat one another with mercy which is what God has wished and wanted for all human beings since God Himself is Most Merciful to us and overlooks our mistakes and sins all the time. That's what I'd want you to know as a Christian in the United States from myself as a Muslim.

In 1948, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was the first global expression of what rights all human beings are entitled to. It holds the distinction of being the most-translated document in the world, and is understood by many international lawyers as being part of customary international law. It is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations.
Many Islamic countries, most notably Turkey, signed on and praised the document. Saudi Arabia was a notable opponent that offered some harsh criticism. Pakistan would later lodge a formal disagreement with these criticisms. Most African countries at this point were not a part of the UN, so it didn't really apply to them.

Later, in 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam was created. Countries like Egypt, Saudi, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan signed on. It affirmed much of what the Universal Declaration said, but it upheld the inequalities inherent in Islamic law. To clarify, these countries are generally known as bad actors when it comes to human rights, the treatment of women, and religious freedom, but they went out of their way to protect Islam and uphold inequities in the name of Islamic sharia.

You can probably tell where I stand on this, but I want to put this out there for a random group of Muslims to comment on. What do you think of the different options that Islamic countries had available to them? Should they have all gotten on board with the Universal Declaration? Is the Cairo document something that you're sympathetic toward, or do you view it as a mistake, an embarrassment, or something that is used to prop up evil in the name of Islam?

And in general, from you as a Muslim to me as a Christian in the United States, what do you want me to know about either of these documents and about a particular kind of Islamic approach to this sort of issue?

[Scimitar]

I'm not aware of any law against it, long as you're in a public space. You want to go to Vatican City and try your luck?

Not inside the Vatican I cannot... see, what you fail to factor in is that The Hijaaz - the sancitifed areas for Muslims is just like the inner walls of the Vatican, no reaching of another faith allowed, you seem to want to impose a double standard which is really quite embarrassing for you.

Palestinian Arabs are still alive and technically mostly well, does that mean all is well with them? Let's see if you're willing to apply the same logic there. What's going on with your spelling? That's not how Muslim is spelled, and you are one.

Palestinians live in a concentration camp type environment - among them are Christians not just Muslims, didn't you know - whereas the Coptic of Egypt LIVE ALONGSIDE THE MUSLIMS - you're ignorance is astounding.

It's actually called the Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations, and the motto is

"Where no counsel is, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety." From Proverbs 11.

What nonsense you spill. read again: MOSSAD, is the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service, it's even in your favourite source for info, wikipedia, it is the former motto, and whether you state it's 'lack of counsel' or 'deception' as the translation, the English translation of 'deception' has been used as the title of a book, as used by a former Mossad agent, to validate the understood meaning of the motto by a former Mossad agent, himself, who published the book detailing such deceptions. Since then this has been the prefered translated narrative which occupied the hearts of the Israeli war machine.

Even your own source of internet knowledge which I scoff at has the beans on it - wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_Way_of_Deception - you have no leg to stand when your own source contradicts itself. And this motto is world wide, tattooed on the backs, chests and arms of the MOSSAD soldiers who choose to have it. I refer to it as the mark of the beast lol. You are so uninformed it's actually ridiculous.

I'd like to point out that you're a Muslim, I'm a Christian, and you know this. Without really chasing the topic, it seems we've been talking about Jews more tan anything else, even though there aren't any Jews participating in the discussion. Just saying.

Does this mean we just conveniently leave them out, because it makes you uncomfortable? Are you a zionist?

Trust me, if the Israeli military did everything it could, every Palestinian Arab would be dead or gone inside a week. It would be even less of a problem than it is in your Egypt example.

And 1.8 billion Muslims would go ape all over the world - Israel wouldn't stand a chance.

Kindly apply the same logic sir, what does this tell us?

This is rich, coming from you lol, you have no logic - just a badly conditioned bias.

I have not been to Egypt, but I have met a Coptic.

That's your be all and end all? one coptic? What did he or she tell you? IN the united states of America? IN English, lol. Were they on holiday? Oh wait - they were? did the Egyptians allow that one coptic to travel freely? allow them to apply for a visa to the States? Are you thinking straight? Can Palestinians apply for Visa's to the United States? DO Palestinians even have valid passports?

You speak of logic and bring me this crap?

Grow a brain, fast - you're making me waste my time. I was expecting some intelligent discussion but the flouride in your water has taken that from you.

This is a careless use of some specific terminology, as addressed here by a US general in Iraq in comments pertaining to the equally careless rhetoric of Ted Cruz.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...islamic-state/

There surely is plenty of valid criticism of US foreign policy decisions in Iraq and in the region, but you led with this little mistake. I bet you really like repeating this in exactly these terms, and you might even know it's false but you can't be bothered to make any adjustments.

Washington Post? really? Did you even watch the news when it was going down - because the whole world did and what you are driving is lies born of a badly formed bias in order to foment yet more brain dead Americans who can't even tell Australis from Iraq on a world map. Want proof? I can show you proof.




The next gen won't know their ass from their elbow.

You do have some incredibly obvious limits...[/snip]

After what I just watched above, and what I've read from you, this is ironically very funny and rich. :D

In general, what would be different about Saudi foreign policy if they were doing things according to your preferences?

Adhere to Qur'an and Sunnah and not bow to the financiers (cue the USA) of their filthy rich and opulent lifestyle by which the rich/poor divide is so bad in the KSA is so bad, it's broken. Tha's what

I would be interested to know why you think the teachings of Wahhabism and the person who originated it are misunderstood. Do you disagree with the assertion that Daesh uses him as their most direct inspiration, and that they're re-enacting much of what he also did?

You asked two questions:

1) the Wahhabi's were a tribe, and not a sect when the Saud promised them the khalifa in Arabia under the lies Hempher told the Sauds to offer the Wahhab tribe.

2) The Wahhabi scholars have all denounced ISIS and so your point is mute. ISIS take the understanding of the Wahhabi's waaay out of any reasonable context - another example of "By deception thou shalt do war"

Documentaries, actually. And how are you with comparatives, by the way?

Documentaries? Oh so you actually like to admit you like to be indoctrinated and dare to ask me how I am with comparatives? TRY ME AND FIND OUT :)

You said you like it hot, but I knew you didn't really mean that. You demand respect and you have threats to go with those demands, but you have none to give. Whatever is wrong with you is no small thing, and I don't care about your tolerance.

I love it hot - I love to expose bad logic and bias for what it is - you no like? leave the kitchen... but not before I get my popcorn and have my fill.

I think you know who the first Muslim really was.

Adam pbuh the first man was the first Muslim. Ask any of us here... they will say the same thing. What you allude to is sheer bias stemming from your indoctrinated and mindless bias as an American Christian. Quite the polarised one at that - typical if I may say so myself.

Is it really this common for Muslims to want to kill all the Jews and then co-opt their history as if it belongs to them? Is that the master plan?

What nonsense are you throwing here? You plum, may I remind you are responding to this comment:

All the Prophets from Adam to Muhammad with Jesus included were Muslims

and this is what you ask?

Is it really this common for Muslims to want to kill all the Jews and then co-opt their history as if it belongs to them? Is that the master plan?

You fool. :D Where did any Muslim express their want to kill a Jew anywhere in this thread - why are you such a liar - is this your inner Mossad leaking with your BY Decpetion thou Shalt Do War now? Get a grip. I've had better conversations with morons. But you take the P out of the your own faculty of reason, logic and context, what an embarrassment you are making of yourself.

And for now, this seems like a good place for me to stop.

LOL, bro, you'd do well to stop altogether at this point, how much more embarrassment will you put yourself through though... this I cannot wait to see.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

That is Christian doctrine and certainly not Islamic. The correct version is that regardless of what your religion may be, you should not trust Jews nor Christians:

Quran 5:51 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Therefore, yes, Hindus should indeed also NOT trust (Jews nor) Christians, since they are specifically mentioned as untrustworthy. Therefore the universal religions rule is: NEVER, EVER trust a Christian. NEVER, EVER make friends with a Christian. Always treat Christians with the total distrust that they deserve. Always remember that Christian religious doctrines are in reality Satanic deceptions.


****************
****************
****************

The ayaat in context seems to be speaking of the modern day Zionist movement which hails from two polar opposites in theology and natural enemies of each other since two millenia - the Jews and the Christians forming an unholy and political alliance named Zionism in these times, the context eschatological.

[AhmedGassama]

I challenge you to bring me only one document about Human Rights which came from the west before the New Ages...
And if by chance you find one then was it approved by the society and politicians there ?

Human Rights started with Islam since the first prophets of Islam... And there is NO DOUBT in history about that!

However today, Human Rights of the UN is just a tool used by the Western countries to push their political agendas. As a matter of a fact they don't give any importance to the human life and to little children and women dying everyday.

So, in general, from you as a Christian in the Western countries to me as a Muslim in the Arab Countries, how do you want me to feel about the Human treatments of the countries of the west towards Muslims today ?

[kritikvernunft]

Human Rights started with Islam since the first prophets of Islam... And there is NO DOUBT in history about that!

The problem with granting rights is that this practice clouds the real issue. Say that every person has right to a loaf of bread every morning. That is beautiful. However, who exactly would have the obligation to provide every person with a loaf of bread? Not me. Not you. Then who exactly?

One possible way to solve the problem would be to say: If you still have a loaf of bread, you must give it to someone who doesn't. The problem with that solution is that lots of people would be on the outlook for other people who have bread, in order to arbitrarily claim bread from someone else. I do not believe that this system would work that well.

Another possible solution, is what they usually do, in order to implement that kind of rights, and that is to let the government provide bread for free to whoever claims a loaf.
Now another problem arises. Bread is essentially a free commodity. Therefore, it is cheaper than gas and oil. Therefore, it is cheaper to heat your house by burning bread than to buy heating gas. There are so many things that you can do with bread that is free of charge, than the government factories will never be able to produce enough bread. You can probably even turn this gratis bread into motorbike fuel. You can raise chickens on free bread, sell the meat, and make a good profit. It is obvious that some people will become stinking rich from repurposing free bread while the people who were supposed to eat it, will stand in queues for a thing that is perennially in short supply. If you do not queue for 3 hours per day, or have good connections with the distribution officers, you will simply not get free bread. Even if you get your free bread, you will find it of rather low quality, and certainly not meant to entice its non-paying customers to eat it.

Furthermore, it will still be needed to pay for the imports of wheat in order to produce that free bread. So, the government will run out of money. So, it will be necessary to raise taxes until the wheat bills for the free bread can be paid again.

If you carefully read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, what you will see, is that at least half of its provisions are free-bread doctrines. In fact, it is mostly a proposal for a gigantic taxation programme, in which the government will provide low-quality free-somethings by exacting ever-growing taxes out of the population, i.e. the total idiots who are not capable of seeing the Satanic lies contained in that very, very deceptive document.

The reason why prophets never promise to give you rights, but simply point out and thereby limit your obligations, is that the prophets do not desire to deceive you. They are messengers of the One True God, while the United Nations is a Satanic ***** doing the work of the devil. The prophets will never promise to supply you with free bread, because even the worst of idiots should know that it just means that someone else will be obliged to provide you with this free bread. There is simply no such thing as a free lunch. The end result is invariably that you will end up receiving very little of value for the enormous taxes that will be exacted out of you. As you know, high taxes are mostly a problem for the poor. The rich know how to deal with them, and in fact rarely pay them. I also rarely pay them. Almost never, actually. Most taxation are taxes on stupidity. Therefore, by clamouring for higher taxes, you are just confiscating more money from the poor, in order to give them low-quality bread that is perennially in short supply.

This is what the United Nations Satanic ***** wants to achieve. It wants to make use of your stupidity in order to deceive you. This is just Satan at work. Satan does not use force. Satan's only instrument is deception, and it works really well, because most people are dumb. Let the ones who want to pay tribute to Satan do what they want. There is no compulsion in religion. We pay tribute to the One True God, because this is our choice, and the pagans pay taxes to Satanic whores, because that is their choice.

[Scimitar]

Read my response from page one to see what God given rights to humans are and how the Prophet pbuh related this in his last sermon to the people.

I found this really good article online:

To many Muslims the Qur’an is the Magna Carta of human rights and a large part of its concern is to free human beings from the bondage of traditionalism, authoritarianism (religious, political, economic, or any other), tribalism, racism, sexism, slavery or anything else that prohibits or inhibits human beings from actualizing the Qur’anic vision of human destiny embodied in the classic proclamation: “Towards Allah is thy limit” 5.

In the section entitled “General Rights” which follows, an account is given of the Qur’an’s affirmation of fundamental rights which all human beings ought to possess because they are so deeply rooted in our humanness that their denial or violation is tantamount to a negation or degradation of that which makes us human. From the perspective of the Qur’an, these rights came into existence when we did; they were created, as we were, by God in order that our human potential could be actualized. Rights created or given by God cannot be abolished by any temporal ruler or human agency. Eternal and immutable, they ought to be exercised since everything that God does is for “a just purpose” 6.

GENERAL RIGHTS
(this is only one section of a lengthy paper by Dr Riffat Hassan - Professor of Humanities at University of Louisville, Kentucky)

A. Right to Life

The Qur’an upholds the sanctity and absolute value of human life 7 and points out that, in essence, the life of each individual is comparable to that of an entire community and, therefore, should be treated with the utmost care 8.

B. Right to Respect

The Qur’an deems all human beings to be worthy of respect 9 because of all creation they alone chose to accept the “trust” of freedom of the will 10. Human beings can exercise freedom of the will because they possess the rational faculty, which is what distinguishes them from all other creatures 11. Though human beings can become “the lowest of the lowest”, the Qur’an declares that they have been made “in the best of moulds” 12, having the ability to think, to have knowledge of right and wrong, to do the good and to avoid the evil. Thus, on account of the promise which is contained in being human, namely, the potential to be God’s vicegerent on earth, the humanness of all human beings is to be respected and considered to be an end in itself.

C. Right to Justice

The Qur’an puts great emphasis on the right to seek justice and the duty to do justice 13. In the context of justice, the Qur’an uses two concepts: “‘adl” and “ihsan”. Both are enjoined and both are related to the idea of “balance”, but they are not identical in meaning.

“‘Adl” is defined by A.A.A. Fyzee, a well-known scholar of Islam, as “to be equal, neither more nor less.” Explaining this concept, Fyzee wrote: “…in a Court of Justice the claims of the two parties must be considered evenly, without undue stress being laid upon one side or the other. Justice introduces the balance in the form of scales that are evenly balanced.” 14. “‘Adl” was described in similar terms by Abu’l Kalam Azad, a famous translator of the Qur’an and a noted writer, who stated: “What is justice but the avoiding of excess? There should be neither too much nor too little; hence the use of scales as the emblems of justice” 15. Lest anyone try to do too much or too little, the Qur’an points out that no human being can carry another’s burden or attain anything without striving for it.16

Recognizing individual merit is a part of “‘adl”, The Qur’an teaches that merit is not determined by lineage, sex, wealth, worldly success or religion, but by righteousness, which consists of both right “belief” (“iman”) and just “action” (” ‘amal”) 17. Further, the Qur’an distinguishes between passive believers and those who strive in the cause of God pointing out that though all believers are promised good by God, the latter will be exalted above the former 18.

Just as it is in the spirit of “‘adl” that special merit be considered in the matter of rewards, so also special circumstances are to be considered in the matter of punishments. For instance, for crimes of unchastity the Qur’an prescribes identical punishments for a man or a woman who is proved guilty 19, but it differentiates between different classes of women: for the same crime, a slave woman would receive half, and the Prophet’s consort double, the punishment given to a “free” Muslim woman 20. In making such a distinction, the Qur’an while upholding high moral standards, particularly in the case of the Prophet’s wives whose actions have a normative significance for the community, reflects God’s compassion for women slaves who were socially disadvantaged.

While constantly enjoining “‘adl”, the Qur’an goes beyond this concept to “ihsan”, which literally means, “restoring the balance by making up a loss or deficiency” 21. In order to understand this concept, it is necessary to understand the nature of the ideal society or community (“ummah”) envisaged by the Qur’an. The word “ummah” comes from the root “umm”, or “mother”. The symbols of a mother and motherly love and compassion are also linked with the two attributes most characteristic of God, namely, “Rahim” and “Rahman”, both of which are derived from the root “rahm”, meaning “womb”. The ideal “ummah” cares about all its members just as an ideal mother cares about all her children, knowing that all are not equal and that each has different needs. While showing undue favour to any child would be unjust, a mother who gives to a “handicapped” child more than she does to her other child or children, is not acting unjustly but exemplifying the spirit of “ihsan” by helping to make up the deficiency of a child who need special assistance in meeting the requirements of life. “Ihsan”, thus, shows God’s sympathy for the disadvantaged segments of human society (such as women, orphans, slaves, the poor, the infirm, and the minorities)

D. Right to Freedom

As stated earlier, the Qur’an is deeply concerned about liberating human beings from every kind of bondage. Recognizing the human tendency toward dictatorship and despotism, the Qur’an says with clarity and emphasis in Surah 3: Al-‘Imran: 79:

It is not (possible) – That a man, to whom – Is given the Book, – and Wisdom, – And the Prophetic Office, – Should say to people:- “Be ye my worshippers – Rather than Allah’s” – On the contrary – (He would say): – “Be ye worshippers – Of Him Who is truly – The Cherisher of all.” 22

The institution of human slavery is, of course, extremely important in the context of human freedom. Slavery was widely prevalent in Arabia at the time of the advent of Islam, and the Arab economy was based on it. Not only did the Qur’an insist that slaves be treated in a just and humane way 23, but it continually urged the freeing of slaves 24. By laying down, in Surah 47: Muhammad: 4, that prisoners of war were to be set free, “either by an act of grace or against ransom” 25, the Qur’an virtually abolished slavery since “The major source of slaves – men and women – was prisoners of war” 26. Because the Qur’an does not state explicitly that slavery is abolished, it does not follow that it is to be continued, particularly in view of the numerous ways in which the Qur’an seeks to eliminate this absolute evil. A Book which does not give a king or a prophet the right to command absolute obedience from another human being could not possibly sanction slavery in any sense of the word.

The greatest guarantee of personal freedom for a Muslim lies in the Qur’anic decree that no one other than God can limit human freedom 27 and in the statement that “Judgment (as to what is right and what is wrong) rests with God alone” 28. As pointed out by Khalid M. Ishaque, an eminent Pakistani jurist:

The Qur’an gives to responsible dissent the status of a fundamental right. In exercise of their powers, therefore, neither the legislature nor the executive can demand unquestioning obedience…The Prophet, even though he was the recipient of Divine revelation, was required to consult the Muslims in public affairs. Allah addressing the Prophet says: “…and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs. And…when thou art resolved, then put thy trust in Allah” 29.

Since the principle of mutual consultation (“shura”) is mandatory 30, it is a Muslim’s fundamental right, as well as responsibility, to participate in as many aspects of the community’s life as possible. The Qur’anic proclamation in Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 256, “There shall be no coercion in matters of faith” 31 guarantees freedom of religion and worship. This means that, according to Qur’anic teaching, non-Muslims living in Muslim territories should have the freedom to follow their own faith-traditions without fear or harassment. A number of Qur’anic passages state clearly that the responsibility of the Prophet Muhammad is to communicate the message of God and not to compel anyone to believe 32. The right to exercise free choice in matters of belief is unambiguously endorsed by the Qur’an 33 which also states clearly that God will judge human beings not on the basis of what they profess but on the basis of their belief and righteous conduct 34, as indicated by Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 62 which says:

Those who believe (in the Qur’an) – And those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), – And the Christians and the Sabians, – Any who believe in God – And the Last Day, – And work righteousness, – Shall have their reward – With the Lord: on them – Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. 35

The Qur’an recognizes the right to religious freedom not only in the case of other believers in God, but also in the case of not-believers in God (if they are not aggressing upon Muslims) 36.

In the context of the human right to exercise religious freedom, it is important to mention that the Qur’anic dictum, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” 37 applies not only to non- Muslims but also to Muslims. While those who renounced Islam after professing it and then engaged in “acts of war” against Muslims were to be treated as enemies and aggressors, the Qur’an does not prescribe any punishment for non-profession or renunciation of faith. The decision regarding a person’s ultimate destiny in the hereafter rests with God.

The right to freedom includes the right to be free to tell the truth. The Qur’anic term for truth is “Haqq” which is also one of God’s most important attributes. Standing up for the truth is a right and a responsibility which a Muslim may not disclaim even in the face of the greatest danger or difficulty 38. While the Qur’an commands believers to testify to the truth, it also instructs society not to harm persons so testifying 39.

E. Right to Acquire Knowledge
The Qur’an puts the highest emphasis on the importance of acquiring knowledge. That knowledge has been at the core of the Islamic world-view from the very beginning is attested to by Surah 96: Al’Alaq: 1-5, which Muslims believe to the first revelation received by the Prophet Muhammad.
Asking rhetorically if those without knowledge can be equal to those with knowledge 40, the Qur’an exhorts believers to pray for advancement in knowledge 41. The famous prayer of the Prophet Muhammad was “Allah grant me Knowledge of the ultimate nature of things” and one of the best known of all traditions (“ahadith”) is “Seek knowledge even though it be in China.”

According to Qur’anic perspective, knowledge is a prerequisite for the creation of a just world in which authentic peace can prevail. The Qur’an emphasizes the importance of the pursuit of learning even at the time, and in the midst, of war 42.

F. Right to Sustenance

As pointed out by Surah 11: Hud: 6, every living creature depends for its sustenance upon God. A cardinal concept in the Qur’an – which underlies the socio-economic-political system of Islam – is that the ownership of everything belongs, not to any person, but to God. Since God is the universal creator, every creature has the right to partake of what belongs to God 43. This means that every human being has the right to a means of living and that those who hold economic or political power do not have the right to deprive others of the basic necessities of life by misappropriating or misusing resources which have been created by God for the benefit of humanity in general.

G. Right to Work

According to Qur’anic teaching every man and woman has the right to work, whether the work consists of gainful employment or voluntary service. The fruits of labour belong to the one who has worked for them – regardless of whether it is a man or a woman. As Surah 4: An-Nisa’: 32 states:
…to men – Is allotted what they earn, – And to women what they earn 44

H. Right to Privacy

The Qur’an recognizes the need for privacy as a human right and lays down rules for protecting an individual’s life in the home from undue intrusion from within or without 45.

I. Right to Protection from Slander, Backbiting, and Ridicule
The Qur’an recognizes the right of human beings to be protected from defamation, sarcasm, offensive nicknames, and backbiting 46. It also states that no person is to be maligned on grounds of assumed guilt and that those who engage in malicious scandal-mongering will be grievously punished in both this world and the next 47.

J. Right to Develop One’s Aesthetic Sensibilities and Enjoy the Bounties Created by God

As pointed out Muhammad Asad, “By declaring that all good and beautiful things to the believers, the Qu’ran condemns, by implication, all forms of life-denying asceticism, world- renunciation and self-mortification.48 In fact, it can be stated that the right to develop one’s aesthetic sensibilities so that one can appreciate beauty in all its forms, and the right to enjoy what God has provided for the nurture of humankind, are rooted in the life-affirming vision of the Qur’an.49

K. Right to Leave One’s Homeland Under Oppressive Conditions

According to Qur’anic teaching , a Muslim’s ultimate loyalty must be to God and not to any territory. To fulfill his Prophetic mission, the Prophet Muhammad decided to leave his place of birth, Mecca, and emigrated to Medina. This event (“Hijrah”) has great historical and spiritual significance for Muslims who are called upon to move away from their place of origin of it becomes an abode of evil and oppression where they cannot fulfill their obligations to God or establish justice.50

L. Right to “The Good Life”

The Qur’an uphold the right of the human being only to life but to ” the good life “. This good life, made up of many elements , becomes possible when a human being is living in a just environment. According to Qur’anic teaching, justice is a prerequisite for peace, and peace is a prerequisite for human development. In a just society, all the earlier-mentioned human rights may be exercised without difficulty. In such a society other basic rights such as the right to a secure place of residence, the right to the protection of one’s personal possessions, the right to protection of one’s covenants, the right to move freely, the right to social and judicial autonomy for minorities, the right to the protection of one’s holy places and the right to return to one’s spiritual center, also exist 51.

Excerpted from a paper written by Dr. Riffat Hassan, "Are Human Rights Compatible with Islam?". Dr. Hassan is a Professor in Humanities (Religious Studies) at University of Louisville, Kentucky.
Notes:
5. Reference here is to The Qur’an, Surah 53: An-Najm: 42; the translation is by Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p. 57 (Lahore: Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf; 1971).
6. For instance, see Surah 15: Al-Hijr: 85; Surah 16: An-Nahl: 3; Surah 44: Ad-Dukhan: 39; Surah 45: Al-Jathiyah: 22; Surah 46: Al-Ahqaf: 3.
7. Reference here is to, Surah 6: Al-An’am: 151.
8. Reference here is to, Surah 5: Al-Ma’idah:32.
9. For instance, see Surah 17: Al-Isra’: 70.
10. Reference here is to Surah 33: Al-Ahzab: 72.
11. Reference here is to Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 30-34.
12. Reference here is to Surah 95: At-Tin: 4-6.
13. For instance, see Surah 5: Al-Ma’idah: 8 and Surah 4: An- Nisa’: 136.
14. A.A.A. Fyzee, A Modern Approach to Islam, p. 17 (Lahore: Universal Books, 1978).
15. Ibid.
16. Reference here is to Sarah 53: An-Najm: 38-39.
17. Reference here is to Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 177.
18. Reference here is to Surah 4: An-Nisa’: 95-96.
19. Reference here is to, Surah 24: An-Nur:2.
20. Reference here is to, Surah 4: An-Nisa’: 25; Surah 33: Al-Ahzab: 30.
21. G.A. Parwez, Tabweeb-ul-Qur’an,(Urdu), Volume I, p. 78 (Lahore: Idara-e-Tulu’-e-Islam, 1977) .
22. Abdullah Yusaf Ali(translation) The Holy Qur’an, p. 148 (Brentwood, Maryland: Amana Corporation, 1989).
23. For instance, in Surah 4: An-Nisa’: 36.
24. For instance in Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 177; Surah 4: An’Nisa’: 92; Surah 5: Al-Ma’idah: 89; Surah 9: At-Tawbah:60; Surah 24: An-Nur: 33; Surah 58: Al-Mujadalah: 3.
25. Muhammad Asad (translation) The Message of the Qur’an, p. 778 (Gibraltar: Dar Al-Andalus, 1980).
26. G.A. Parwez, Islam: A Challenge to Religion, p. 346 (Lahore: Idara-e-Tulu’-e-Islam, 1986).
27. Reference here is to, Surah 42: Ash-Shura: 21.
28. Reference here is to Surah 12: Yusuf: 40.
29. "Islamic law – Its Ideals and Principles"in The Challenge of Islam, p.157(A. Gauher, editor, 1980; London: The Islamic Council of Europe).
30. Reference here is to the Qur’an, Surah 42: Ash-Shura: 38.
31. The Message of the Qur’an, p. 57.
32. For instance, see Surah 6: Al-An’am: 107; Surah 10: Yunus: 99; Surah 16: Al-Nahl: 82; Surah 42: Ash-Shura: 48.
33. For instance, see Surah 18: Al-Kahf: 29.
34. For instance, see Surah 6: Al-An’am: 108.
35. The Holy Quran, pp. 33-34.
36. For instance, see Surah 6: Al-An’am: 108.
37. Reference here is to Surah 2: Al- Baqarah: 256; The Holy Quran, p-106.
38. Reference here is to Surah 4: An-Nisa’: 135.
39. Reference here is to Surah 2: Al-Baqarah; also see G.A. Parwez, "Bunyadi Haquq-e-Insaniyat" (Urdu), in Tulu’-e-Islam, pp. 34-35 (Lahore, November 1981).
40. Reference here is to Surah 39: Az-Zumar: 9.
41. Reference here is to Surah 20: Ta-Ha: 114.
42. Reference here is to Surah 9: At-Tawbah: 122.
43. For instance, see Surah 6: Al-An’am: 165; Surah 67: Al-Mulk:15.
44. The Holy Qur’an, p. 194.
45. For instance, see Surah 24: An-Nur: 27-28, 58; Surah 33: Al-Ahzab: 53; Surah 49: Al- Hujurat : 12.
46. Reference here is to Surah 49: Al-Hujurat: 11-12.
47. For instance, see Surah 24: An-Nur: 16-19; also see Surah 4: An-Nisa’: 148-149.
48. The Message of the Qur’an, p. 207.
49. For instance, see Surah 7: Al-A’raf: 32.
50. For instance, see Surah 4: An-Nisa’: 97-100.
51. In this context, reference may be made to several Qur’anic verses. e.g., Surah 2:Al- Baqarah:229; Surah 3: Al-‘Imran: 17,77; Surah 5: Al-Ma’idah:1; 42-48; Surah 9: At-Tawbah: 17; Surah 17: Al-Isra’: 34; Surah 67: Al-Mulk:15.

Source

Scimi

[kritikvernunft]

an account is given of the Qur’an’s affirmation of fundamental rights which all human beings ought to possess because they are so deeply rooted in our humanness that their denial or violation is tantamount to a negation or degradation of that which makes us human.

My personal opinion is that only the Quran is allowed to offer the exact wording and phrasing of what exactly the One True God meant to convey us as his message and his resulting divine law. Only the Quranic text can be considered to be axiomatically legally binding. The clarifications in the Sunnah are legally binding only inasmuch as they clarify the Quranic text, but do not have authority to introduce additional divine law. Therefore, no other document than the Quranic text and its legitimate clarifications in the Sunnah could ever carry the weight of legitimate divine law. Any other document could only ever be legitimate if it contain application of divine law, and not new introduction.

A. Right to Life. YES BUT. the exceptions are clearly listed in the Quranic text.

B. Right to Respect. AMBIGUOUS/UNDEFINED. What exactly does "respect" mean? The analytical statements a priori unambiguously defining the term "respect" are missing here. In such circumstances, this cannot be considered to be a legal principle. You must very, very precisely define the term "respect" to make the provision truly applicable. One possibility is to establish a concrete, practical list of disrespectful behaviours, while any other behaviour must be considered at least respect-neutral. From there on, believers can be requested to refrain from engaging in behaviours that have been explicitly listed as disrespectful.

C. Right to Justice. YES. Nobody can remove or detract the justice-seeking believer from the Divine Law that gives him justice.

D. Right to Freedom. AMBIGUOUS/UNDEFINED. NOT ALWAYS TRUE. "Freedom" is not always a good thing. Try to give "freedom" to your wife, and to wholesale release her from her duties, and then see how she reacts. Or try to release a slave girl who just gave birth the next Ottoman Sultan, and see how she tries to use her influence to shut down any attempt at releasing her.

E. Right to Acquire Knowledge. YES BUT. This principle can easily be repurposed into an obligation to imbibe ideological indoctrinations. Even the Soviet Union had this kind of "rights", which became translated into a God-given right for school children to memorize the manifesto of the all-soviet communist party. So, no. It is simply too easy to abuse this so-called right. I reject this right, because you have not addressed all security issues related in a credible manner.

F. Right to Sustenance. REJECTED. What other person would have the obligation to provide sustenance? This sounds too much like a new government taxation programme.

G. Right to Work. REJECTED. What other person would have the obligation to provide work to others? Again, this sounds too much like a new government taxation programme.

H. Right to Privacy. YES. ABSOLUTELY. Governments have no authority whatsoever to interfere in issues between husband and wife or parents and children. Entirely agreed.

I. Right to Protection from Slander, Backbiting, and Ridicule. YES BUT. This must be covered by the Qasis, i.e. the Hammurabic Codex, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", and may not be a separate legal matter, unless the Quranic text happens to make it one, which I seriously doubt.

J. Right to Develop One’s Aesthetic Sensibilities and Enjoy the Bounties Created by God. YES. AGREED. Humans are not supposed to overrule the laws of nature, as instituted by the very will of the One True God.

K. Right to Leave One’s Homeland Under Oppressive Conditions. YES BUT. WITH BIG QUESTIONS. It still requires the destination territory to agree to take in such refugee. Therefore, this amounts to an obligation to allow people claiming that their homeland would be oppressive -- how do we verify such claim? -- to move into your neighbourhood. It may lead to very serious political problems when you do this on a large scale. Therefore, this must be balanced against existing political realities.

L. Right to “The Good Life”. REJECTED. What other person would have the obligation to provide such "good life"? This sounds too much like a new government taxation programme.

This A to L program does not take into account that we were supposed to assist and help other believers voluntarily, through zakat and alms. I actually reject every attempt at replacing these provisions in the Quranic text by new government taxation programmes.

I personally have a bit of a problem in that realm, actually. I live in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and I am actually perfectly willing to spend Zakaat and alms on believers who happen to be truly needy, on the condition that their predicament is not something that will just return, because it is the result of an unaddressed behavioural problem. For example, I am not much interested in funding the drinking habits of a fellow believer who has run into trouble because of his issues with alcohol. Furthermore, I also have a strong preference of believers whom I can communicate with because they speak English, and who are at least able to read and write. Therefore, someone who would not be capable of making a post here, because of his lack of English literacy, is not included in my own target group of assistance-deserving believers, but undoubtedly in someone else's. Additionally, I am also not particularly interested in funding initiatives in faraway locations where I would have no opportunity to verify any proper use of funds.

In other words, there is certainly an unused willingness on my side to spend available for believers who happen to be dwelling in this territorial area. I would be more than pleased to heed the call of our Master, the One True God, and hence assist qualified other believers. The budget is there, but unfortunately not yet the opportunity to spend it. I am definitely open to suggestions.

I intend to carry out yearly Zakat calculations, earmark an additional alms budget (possibly the same as the Zakat budget?), and expend the budget on a monthly basis or so, on credible local initiatives and on individual assistance forays. The money will be reserved and earmarked anyway. So, I either manage to spend it or else I will possibly just throw it into the river, but I'd rather spend it.

Therefore, feel free to let me know of spending opportunities in that realm. I would be most grateful to hearing about them!

['abd al-hakeem]

Forgive me for rudely interrupting and submitting a, largely, unwanted, unwarranted, uneducated and purely biased opinion - however;

For something that fellow human-beings are banging on so boisterously about, nothing seems to be done by the Muslim participants to identify, reduce and prevent personal opinion and nafs from being rampantly slathered up and down this post and all over our Faith. "...argue in way that is best..."

As it is the last post just serves as a reminder of what having a personal opinion about Divine Instructions will do to a person for their apparent lack of FAITH in the POWER of their Creator, and pigeon-holing their charitable contributions by subjecting the recipients to a screening process.

When did we get so interested in getting lost in the detail with Shaythan, when the Power of our Faith is in the simplicity of the CONCEPT. Colloquially speaking, even the non-muslims know the devil is in the detail... Audhu billah.

This is a reminder for myself first. Ittaqullah - Allahu alem.

[kritikvernunft]

pigeon-holing their charitable contributions by subjecting the recipients to a screening process.

Well, if you can prove that you can post here (or elsewhere) in English, and you are a believer in my territorial area, and you have problems that can really be addressed with charitable funding, I am willing to chip in with funds afforded up to the amount of Zakaat -and alms calculations. What would there be unreasonable about this?

No trust in the Power of the Creator to send, specifically, their said contribution to where they intend it. Sounds like a COMPLETE lack of Faith.

You confuse faith in the One True God with gullibility.

In the One True God we trust, and in nothing else. Everything else must therefore be viewed with varying degrees of suspicion. It is exactly your very suspicion of everything that is not the One True God, that proves your exclusive trust in the One True God. How else can you prove your trust in the One God than by distrusting everything else? That is the natural corollary of exclusive trust and exclusive belief on the One True God.

True faith in the One True God is exactly the opposite of gullibility.

['abd al-hakeem]

Well, if you can prove that you can post here (or elsewhere) in English, and you are a believer in my territorial area, and you have problems that can really be addressed with charitable funding, I am willing to chip in with funds afforded up to the amount of Zakaat -and alms calculations. What would there be unreasonable about this?

You confuse faith in the One True God with gullibility.

In the One True God we trust, and in nothing else. Everything else must therefore be viewed with varying degrees of suspicion. It is exactly your very suspicion of everything that is not the One True God, that proves your exclusive trust in the One True God. How else can you prove your trust in the One God than by distrusting everything else? That is the natural corollary of exclusive trust and exclusive belief on the One True God.

True faith in the One True God is exactly the opposite of gullibility.

Wow. A lot of pain being expressed. May Allah subhano wa Ta'ala ease your suffering and calm your mind. You've put a lot of restriction on my response or expected response. So I'll simply say this -

I worship not that which ye worship
Nor will ye worship that which I worship
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship
Nor will ye worship that which I worship
To you be your Way and to me mine

May Allah subhano wa Ta'ala have mercy on all mankind and forgive me. Amin ya Rabbil alamin.

[kritikvernunft]

To you be your Way and to me mine

Obviously.

But then again, it does not address the issue of getting rid of zakaat -and alms money.

As you know, the Quran basically admonishes us to dispose of these funds, because keeping them in your own accounts, will usually lead to metaphysical evils and other virulent infections.

I seriously believe that this is true.

Therefore, I will make my calculations and get rid of that money asap. I seriously do not want to keep it. It is in my impression even dangerous to do so; and this is not just some kind of superstition. It would contribute to handing over power to Satan, who will then manage to acquire control over things. So, you can reasonably expect to become a victim of targeted deceptions if you fail to make the appropriate counter-veiling moves. It is indeed always a question of self-interest. That is why it is even better to throw that kind of money into the river than spending it, which is always a glaring mistake.

I was actually thinking of spending it on Syrian refugees, or so. Unfortunately, they never seem to head in this particular direction. We are located quite far away from the Mediterranean basin, and it would take them quite a bit effort to reach these shores, since over land, they would have to cut all the way through Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, East Bengal, Burma, and then Thailand, to finally reach Cambodia. This may be an unrealistic endeavour, since it would lead them to venture through quite a few hostile pagan lands. I somehow suspect that they cannot do this on foot. So, they would have to find a way to sail to Suez, in order to steam ahead to the Indian Ocean. From there, they would still have to get through the Straits of Melacca and sail around the former crown colony of Singapore, in order to navigate along the eastern coast of the Malaya sultanates, and then cut through the Gulf of Thailand, in order to land on our southern shores.

In fact, I somehow suspect that it could be done even on a larger -- but still politically undangerous -- scale, and that it should be possible to raise the issue with the administration of some of the Gulf States for them to disburse some oil money and co-fund the refugees' living expenses. These Gulf States already do that in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey anyway, to the tune of millions of of displaced persons. I somehow suspect that the Cambodian authorities could agree to take in a few thousand Syrian refugees or so, to sit out the Syrian war in this vicinity, especially if these refugees are adequately funded and followed up by a friendly and sympathetic Middle eastern state. Their diplomacy would be quite likely to work. Of course, some refugees may be more interested in heading to European-Union territory, but that must also be considered a hard problem, because there are serious political problems associated with doing that, while the first and foremost concern should be the option to sit out the Syrian war somewhere in safety. They can always decide later on to do something else, or even possibly go back when the hostilities in their homeland have more or less subsided (any time soon?).

So, I am certainly interested in doing something in that realm too, why not? Syrian refugees are not alcoholics, but people who have had the bad luck of seeing their homeland turn into a war zone. Therefore, I would definitely lower my natural levels of suspicion for anything related to the needs of people trying to get away from the war in Syria.

['abd al-hakeem]

Unfortunately, they never seem to head in this particular direction.

Do you think it beneath the Creator to apply funds and intent to the cause you so desire? Putting limitations on the Power of the Creator is a dangerous thing...

[kritikvernunft]

Do you think it beneath the Creator to apply funds and intent to the cause you so desire?

Well, assistance to Syrian refugees looks so much something entirely appropriate for the use of charity funds. Therefore, it is very attractive to pick it as a destination for such funds. It is just fraught with practical difficulties. There are not here. They may possibly not even want to come here. It may be difficult and even unreasonable for them to come here. So, yes, obstacles galore.

Putting limitations on the Power of the Creator is a dangerous thing...

There would be no point in doing that. The Creator will simply do what he decides to do. It is not a question of putting limitations. It is rather a question of not trying to second-guess what the Creator will be doing next. I do not count on the availability of that kind of information, because doing so, is utterly unreasonable.

['abd al-hakeem]

Well, assistance to Syrian refugees looks so much something entirely appropriate for the use of charity funds. Therefore, it is very attractive to pick it as a destination for such funds. It is just fraught with practical difficulties. There are not here. They may possibly not even want to come here. It may be difficult and even unreasonable for them to come here. So, yes, obstacles galore.

There would be no point in doing that. The Creator will simply do what he decides to do. It is not a question of putting limitations. It is rather a question of not trying to second-guess what the Creator will be doing next. I do not count on the availability of that kind of information, because doing so, is utterly unreasonable.

So you've both limited yourself from making reasonable efforts to donate to your chosen cause, and claimed ignorance to the limitless capabilities of the Creator...

By Allah, I never saw a prisoner better than Khubaib. By Allah, one day I saw him eating of a bunch of grapes in his hand while he was chained in irons, and there was no fruit at that time in Mecca."

['abd al-hakeem]

Well, assistance to Syrian refugees looks so much something entirely appropriate for the use of charity fundsdestination for such funds. It is just fraught with practical difficulties. There are not here. They may possibly not even want to come here. It may be difficult and even unreasonable for them to come here. So, yes, obstacles galore

You could always extend your charity to a Cambodian orphan... At least, that's if you insist that the Creator cannot send/apply your zakaat to the Syrian Refugees in accordance with your prequalification process. What do you know of what Islam says regarding the orphans and the reward for caring for them?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you kritikvernunft;

Well, assistance to Syrian refugees looks so much something entirely appropriate for the use of charity funds. Therefore, it is very attractive to pick it as a destination for such funds.

Ameen.

It is just fraught with practical difficulties. There are not here. They may possibly not even want to come here. It may be difficult and even unreasonable for them to come here. So, yes, obstacles galore.

There are Muslim charities that overcome all these problems, the biggest problem is, you would have to part with some of your great wealth.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[kritikvernunft]

You could always extend your charity to a Cambodian orphan... At least, that's only if you insist that the Creator cannot send/apply your zakaat to the place you so desire... What do you know of what Islam says regarding the orphans and the reward for caring for them?

Yes, orphans are also a possibility. Never thought of this option actually. Where would I find them?

Oh. There may be an issue, though. Thinking of it, orphans are children. There is a massive issue in Cambodia concerning foreigners showing interest to children, because of the issue of pedophiles who got arrested here. It is the same problem as in the Phillipines. The issue has become highly mediatized and politicized. Therefore, for the sake of the argument, I may want to choose another target group, because I do not wish to be confused for a pedophile. In other words, seeking to contact orphans is pretty much off-limit. I cannot imagine myself going to orphanage and getting accused of all kinds of evil mischief. Showing interest in local children is really something to avoid, because even innocent friendliness will be misinterpreted for evil behaviour. Getting involved in this field may actually land you in a detention facility, where you could be languishing for decades. I entirely understand the need to help children, but not with the risk of facing all kinds of very shameful accusations. So, no, no local children.

['abd al-hakeem]

So, no, no local children.

If you put half as much critical analysis into actually donating charity, you would have done it by now...

[kritikvernunft]

There are Muslim charities that overcome all these problems, the biggest problem is, you would have to part with some of your great wealth.

Ha ah ah ;-)

You do not need to be rich to pay for charity.

The zakaat -and alms calculations should keep charity affordable to even the most moderate incomes. In my impression, all computations are pretty much proportionalized, with exemptions for basic necessities and so. If you have less, you automatically pay less. Therefore, none of that should be an issue, unless you are in serious financial trouble, but in that case, your role in this game would just reverse from donating party to recipient. So, in my impression, everybody can participate in this game, regardless of actual income level.

[sister herb]

Its neighbors are just awful, the worst of the worst.

Israel´s neighbors are awful? Well, it´s neighbors can say the same about it.

What comes to the Coptics in Egypt, I don´t think they can complain very much. They live in their own homes, not in the concentration... sorry refugee camps like Palestinians in their own country, Egyptian army doesn´t bomb their heads off at every five years, they can travel freely, there isn´t any economic blockade which would prevent them to get their daily dose of food etc.

Technically they feel great.

Of course every Egyptians live now under the fear in general, thanks for the military coup. If you have noticed, those western democratic countries whose swear for the name of the human rights, haven´t declared the political, military or economical boycott against the Egypt´s non-democratic government and they also are very quiet when the ex-president (who was elected in free, democratic elections) still sits in the jail. Why´s that if the human rights are so important and belongs to all?

Or does the human rights belong only for the people in the west, not to others?

[kritikvernunft]

If you put half as much critical analysis into actually donating charity, you would have done it by now...

Indeed, all of this is probably professional bias. You should try to manually do a few public-key elliptic curve cryptography computations, or try to fend off code injection issues.

You see, this very page says:

<meta name="generator" content="vBulletin 4.2.2" />

While they ominously say this about vBulletin 4.2.2: includes ability to download vB4, which we will no longer sell separately.
This means that the vBulletin team are already systematically throwing away vulnerability reports concerning vb4.

You see, the automated attack bots will already have integrated this here. Especially, CVE-2014-2022, really looks not good at all.
It is obviously just an accident waiting to happen, since any such attack can trivially easily be automated, and therefore probably already is.

If they can attack, they will attack.
You can doubt this, but only at your own risk and peril.

You see, it may look overly complicated what I just did, but if you are used to doing this for a living, it takes less time to figure it all out, than to write a few sentences about it. You will have understood everything within seconds.

Therefore, since I get paid for doing "critical analysis", you can imagine that I do not think much of doing it.

Even my religious mantra is quite reinforced by my professional bias: In the one God we trust and in nothing else.

If I thought any differently, I should probably do another job instead, because total distrust is pretty much the essence of any security job; and not only in software. So, since it makes me really good money to distrust everything, except for the One true God, what did you expect me to do? To trust other things too?

No, thanks. I would rather nicely stay in business! ;-)

['abd al-hakeem]

May Allah subhano wa Ta'ala guide you to the Right Path. Amin

[greenhill]

Yes, orphans are also a possibility. Never thought of this option actually. Where would I find them?

Oh. There may be an issue, though. Thinking of it, orphans are children. There is a massive issue in Cambodia concerning foreigners showing interest to children, because of the issue of pedophiles who got arrested here. It is the same problem as in the Phillipines. The issue has become highly mediatized and politicized. Therefore, for the sake of the argument, I may want to choose another target group, because I do not wish to be confused for a pedophile. In other words, seeking to contact orphans is pretty much off-limit. I cannot imagine myself going to orphanage and getting accused of all kinds of evil mischief. Showing interest in local children is really something to avoid, because even innocent friendliness will be misinterpreted for evil behaviour. Getting involved in this field may actually land you in a detention facility, where you could be languishing for decades. I entirely understand the need to help children, but not with the risk of facing all kinds of very shameful accusations. So, no, no local children.

Go investigate the orphanage. Let the work that goes on there satisfy you and donate to the organisation. You don't have to physically do the work if you are worried about the negative possibilities.

There are more than plenty of these organsisations around. Funny you should use as reference the few that is soured as a result of sick people.


:peace:

[kritikvernunft]

Go investigate the orphanage. Let the work that goes on there satisfy you and donate to the organisation. Yoh don't have to physically do the work if you are worried about the negative possibilities. There are more than plenty of these organsisations around. Funny you should use as reference the few that is soured as a result of sick people.

Meeting in the real world: Adults only. Preferably only men.

There are too many security considerations to consider when straying from this principle. Seriously, any set of reasonable and serious security guidelines will recommend against doing that. You cannot long-term interact with other people and refuse to implement basic security or to hunt down the most glaring vulnerabilities. It will all end in some kind of security nightmare, if you do that.

['abd al-hakeem]

Meeting in the real world: Adults only. Preferably only men.

There are too many security considerations to consider when straying from this principle. Seriously, any set of reasonable and serious security guidelines will recommend against doing that. You cannot long-term interact with other people and refuse to implement basic security or to hunt down the most glaring vulnerabilities. It will all end in some kind of security nightmare, if you do that.

I berated myself pretty hard for getting into this ongoing exchange with you, brother. But I have to defend both myself and anybody else who has provided a sincere suggestion as to how to donate your wealth. What we did not request, was a donation of your opinion on what Islam teaches us is charitable.

You have done a rather good job of highlighting the alarming predilictions of those that have warranted such secure outlooks on life, with nothing to be said for acknowledging the validity of some of our suggestions. What is stopping you from making your charitable donation in the privacy and security of your own home without propogating responses from the wider Muslim community that exists here at Islamic Board?

The primary point being made to you, without you further distracting from the point, is simply to go and make your charity - or don't. It doesn't make an iota worth of difference to any of us where you go and make it, nor whether you actually make it at all. Why should it?

Either way, May Allah subhano wa ta'ala grant you guidance, and the very best in this life and the next. Amin

[greenhill]

To be really honest @kritikvernunft and this has nothing to do with the OP, is that I get this overwhelming feeling from your words here that you 'feel' it is you against the rest of the world, whether that is the result of the nature of your job where the thought process must be something like 'guilty until proven innocent' even then it might still be guilty because we we can't yet find the evidence. If I see hungry cat and I feed it, it is a spurr of the moment thing. Life is about moments. Moments will pass. What did you do in all those moments? Will it all just pass into nothing but seriously convoluted scientific terminologies about all possible parameters of possibilities and probabilities of ifs and buts or just get on and help. There are plenty of people that need help. The probability of no one being in serious need of help at any one time is zero. That someone is just a phone call away.

To add, your post are really off on a tangeant for one thing. But your facts quoted pertaining to islam and its belief is putting it bluntly, false. Your assumption of my views on Jesus is .. I won't go there but I must thank the Moderator @najimuddin for removing the stuff. It's like me telling you your family history. Totally presumptious. But everybody is entitled to their opinion hence we must be wise how we share that opinion. I could have reacted but sister herb said what needed to be said and I left it at 'ignorance'.

Still, it is a forum, and I try to input where I can without being lengthy (it is hard). I especially like to give a different view point using the most fundamentally basic principle. The message of God. His name is Allah. Where we need specifics, we refer to Quran and sunnah.

Start with the root, understand how it is firmly placed. What are the ingredients that goes in to make a strong trunk of belief before you see the infinite variables of possibilities in the branches and leaves.

Don't go chopping off branches..

I am still waiting for you to make sense.. Jesus is a wonderful prophet. I am sorry for what he has become for the Christians, though. It is exactly as the Quran says about people of past words to the effect of 'What? Abandon what my father and his father and his father before him worshipped?' Christianity and this belief is too deeply ingrained for too long already to be changed easily...

:peace:

[Scimitar]

My personal opinion is that only the Quran is allowed to offer the exact wording and phrasing of what exactly the One True God meant to convey us as his message and his resulting divine law.

Then you won't ever know what it contains, because you are reading a translation of it in your language, which is attempted by man.

So how can you - by your own logic - know any Qur'an?????

See bro, your logic doesn't work.

And you cannot interpolate your own understanding based off a loose translation and then claim "Only God can know...." when you've attempted to side line God (na'udhubilah)and entertain your "messiah complex".

You aint doing this right.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

This A to L program does not take into account that we were supposed to assist and help other believers voluntarily, through zakat and alms. I actually reject every attempt at replacing these provisions in the Quranic text by new government taxation programmes.

I made sure to mention that what I posted was only a part of the original paper. There's a lot more which I did not post simply because of tl;dr, and what I did post dealt with your line of enquiry.

As a new Muslim, your journey has only just started. It's best to take your time and learn as you go,

If you want, you can download some PDF books on particular topics within Islam that help to explain the dissemination of Islamic tenets in greater detail.

www.kalamullah.com is a good site where you can download books from a wide variety of topics pertaining to Islam.

Scimi

[kritikvernunft]

Life is about moments. Moments will pass. What did you do in all those moments?

That is certainly one way to look at life.

That someone is just a phone call away.

I do not use phones, and certainly not mobile ones.

Before you say that I am paranoia, I probably am. I am currently doing a new startup -- as a silly sideshow Bob -- with three other software devs: szilla.io. We are almost live now (maybe a few weeks or so). It is a secure tunneling service by the paranoia for the paranoia. Unfortunately, I cannot show you a link to my main project; and not just because it is an onion on the tor network.

I do speak bits and bobs of the local Khmer language here, but I really do not want to do religion in that language. It has to be in English, or else I just won't do it. So, that puts an additional stop to the idea of doing phone calls, here locally. By the way, almost nobody speaks English here. The problem is several orders of magnitude worse than in Thailand and Vietnam, which are the two main neighbouring countries here. For other things, it is perfectly ok for me that the locals pretty much do not speak English at all -- I would not want it any other way -- because that allows me to be highly selective in my interactions. Seriously, I only understand Khmer when I want to.

Your assumption of my views on Jesus is ..

Well, I am probably paranoia about that too.

I am still waiting for you to make sense.. Jesus is a wonderful prophet. I am sorry for what he has become for the Christians, though.

All the surrounding claims add up to a massive security issue. A big gaping hole. Therefore, I am not particularly interested in furthering this subject. I cannot fix that problem, and I probably do not want to fix it anyway. So, let's move on to more interesting issues and concerns.

I admit that I have painted myself into a corner here. I specifically picked this country to live in, because they do not speak English, while I only understand their local language when I want to; but now I still need them to speak English, because I will not do religion in a language that I don't even particularly like.

You see, when they speak Khmer here, they usually believe that I surely do not understand that language, because almost no foreigners can manage to speak it. That is why I always try to address them in English, which they usually cannot speak. That makes also them believe that I surely do not understand their language either. Wrong. I do. I know exactly what they are saying. You would not believe what people say about you when they think that you do not understand them anyway. In the One God we trust and in nothing else.

['abd al-hakeem]

From one paranoid brother to another - May our beloved Creator calm your mind, soothe your soul and ease your burdens. Amin

['abd al-hakeem]

May Allah subhano wa Ta'ala grant you Good in this life and the next. amin

[greenhill]

I am beginning to feel you brother @kritikvernunft . Your last post enlightened me slightly.

Just out of my needing to 'share' ... I am a Malay living in Malaysia. A same person, foreigner of course is foreigner. But a foreigner speaking Malay is something I, as a citizen here, find endearing. It puts that foreigner in a different league to those who do not attempt to learn but expects the natives to understand a foreign language.

You see, trust can divided into areas so to speak, possessions and secrets are say, untouchable. Say someone wants to borrow a small amount from you, 5 bucks. Because the amount is of no real consequence the action of the borrower becomes indicators for me. If he pays me back, when and how all goes towards the build up of that 'relationship'. How he treats others and his propensity to be true to his words or not.

Over time things won't remain static but instead will develop. There are people out there who would put their life on the line on the account of friends.

:peace:

[cooterhein]

Allahs laws uphold rights for everything humans, animals & nature, not just for muslims but the whole of humanity for the benifit of our souls, not our pockets

Some Muslim countries have gotten on board with truly universal rights for the whole of humanity and not just for Muslims, but a particular group of Islamic countries went out of their way to draft an official resolution that supports the protection of a very nice set of rights for Muslims and lesser rights for non-Muslims. From your response, I think I can gather that you're in favor of what the former group did- true support of the same rights for all people. It doesn't explain exactly why those other Muslim countries did the other thing, but I think I've gotten a bit of an explanation on that and at least it's clear to me which course of action you ascribe to a true and proper expression of Islam. Thank you for that.

[cooterhein]

Word of advice, cooterhein. If you intend to preach to Muslims about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, either stay far clear of Israel, or recognize it for the human rights violator it is, without making excuses for it.

That's kind of hard to do when I'm asking a question that asks for a comparative explanation of some Muslim countries to other Muslim countries, and then the first response is from a moderator who thinks that's a perfect opportunity to hold an American Christian to account for the actions of Jews in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's a perfect example of ignoring a question from a brand-new member in favor of a more personal attack.

By the way, I have recognized the issues, such as they are. I've also placed them in context. Israel has some noticeable human rights issues that do need attention and action, I've also said that its neighbors are all in a much worse place with their human rights issues.

You quoted from the document and I've acknowledged that there are noticeable issues with Israel. You also characterize Israel as one of the worst violators in the world though, but that can only be true if you ignore all the Islamic countries that are far worse.

I am strongly implying that the developed West, on the whole, is way up here when it comes to human rights issues, while the Islamic world, by and large with a few exceptions, forms the bulk of the "worst of the worst" category way down there. That would be a perfect example of a sanctimonious description if it were not absolutely true. I do understand that there can be a fine line between criticism and commentary, but this is an objectively true description of how the world is at this point in time.

It didn't have to go here though, you know. There was a certain moderator all the way back in the first response who could have answered the actual question instead of opening all of this up.

[sister herb]

Some Muslim countries have gotten on board with truly universal rights for the whole of humanity and not just for Muslims,

Well, hopely also the western countries now take a lesson from those Islamic countries and will give same rights also to their Muslim citizens in the West. You might not be aware how many times the basic rights of Muslims are violated in the West. Not only in those cases when a Muslim lady hasn´t rights to decide how she will wear in the public but also rights to build the worshipping places (mosques) is forbidden. Or like in the Switzerland where calling to prayer (adhan) is prohibited. Comparing; it is legal to use the Church bells.

Nowadays it seems that at the least gays have more rights than Muslims in the west.

[cooterhein]

I challenge you to bring me only one document about Human Rights which came from the west before the New Ages...
And if by chance you find one then was it approved by the society and politicians there ?

Well, 1948 was the first time ever for a credible effort at getting the entire planet on the same page with this type of thing. Since that have never happened before....bad planet?

Human Rights started with Islam since the first prophets of Islam... And there is NO DOUBT in history about that!

I'm not sure what type of response people are looking for when they assert that they used to be so much better than they currently are.

So, in general, from you as a Christian in the Western countries to me as a Muslim in the Arab Countries, how do you want me to feel about the Human treatments of the countries of the west towards Muslims today ?

That wasn't at all what I asked about in the OP. I'm asking about how Muslim countries treat non-Muslims from country to country, acknowledging that there are differences from one to the next with a curiosity as to exactly why that is. Almost everyone who's responded seems to be dissatisfied with that as a starting point and all you want to talk about is "What about our grievances against you, or anyone else?" And I've had about enough of that.

[cooterhein]

My personal opinion is that only the Quran is allowed to offer the exact wording and phrasing of what exactly the One True God meant to convey us as his message and his resulting divine law.

What about international law, which deals with a whole lot of non-Muslims? Why should international law be subject to Quranic interpretation?

[muslimah_B]

Some Muslim countries have gotten on board with truly universal rights for the whole of humanity and not just for Muslims, but a particular group of Islamic countries went out of their way to draft an official resolution that supports the protection of a very nice set of rights for Muslims and lesser rights for non-Muslims. From your response, I think I can gather that you're in favor of what the former group did- true support of the same rights for all people. It doesn't explain exactly why those other Muslim countries did the other thing, but I think I've gotten a bit of an explanation on that and at least it's clear to me which course of action you ascribe to a true and proper expression of Islam. Thank you for that.

Your very much welcome :)

What you have to understand is that with the world today, for you or anyone else to understand islam you must look at the Quran & Hadeeths and for the Quran you must learn from reputable scholars/muftis, you cant look towards the actions of muslims to determine "this is islam" you will always find people doing something that is wrong, we muslims are not perfect but those who are practising their faith strive to be as perfect as possible.

People make mistakes, do stupid things and what happens is that people attribute this to islam and say "ah so this is what islam is about" which in reality is the furthest thing from islam ever.
Eg - some muslims drink & gamble now these things are clearly forbidden in islam & once you have an intoxicant your prayers are invalid for 40days !
-some muslims commit adultry which is also forbidden.

Anyway back to the human rights issue.
When you say why doesnt muslim countries sign and join this human rights well
1. They are man made laws
2. Islam gave us laws for everything to adhere to, Allah triumphs over everything as we know that whatever Allah demands & tells us is for our benifit along with the hadeeths which added onto our sharia aswell.
3. The people who made these laws do not even uphold them on their own soil and actually support isreal & stand by them while they commit such attrocities to HUMAN BEINGS & violate every single right to humans, animals & nature (they destory homes, livestock, burn down their olive trees etc)
How can you speak so highly of people who still trade with Israel but preach about human rights
If they truly upheld human rights as they say they do, they would immediately stop trading with isreal and corner them off, but they wont as there is too much money to earn from war.

So you have to understand that until something is done about this issue which clearly violates every right known to man then - no1 is going to listn to you preach about human rights when not one of those human rights is uphold towards muslims even in their own countries i.e Uk & usa the whole of the west, in many cases we arent even seen as humans we are seen as sub-humans, rodents, swarms of insects

There are serious double standards that only happen when man tried to intervene and make up his own laws when we already have perfect laws set in place for everything by Allah.

-if everyone gave zakat 2.5% of their wealth there would be absolutely no poor or hungry people in this world, if all the wealthy governments stopped going to war it would stop military spending which could go to aid overseas helping those who actually need help

But what do i know apparently im sub-human & dont have a brain [emoji58] (i know you havent said this but honestly i hear this so much now its becoming a joke when i hear people talk about human rights yet treat us like dirt)

[cooterhein]

Israel´s neighbors are awful? Well, it´s neighbors can say the same about it.

Not to the same extent. Not by any measurable standard that I've ever seen, at least.

[cooterhein]

Well, hopely also the western countries now take a lesson from those Islamic countries and will give same rights also to their Muslim citizens in the West. You might not be aware how many times the basic rights of Muslims are violated in the West. Not only in those cases when a Muslim lady hasn´t rights to decide how she will wear in the public but also rights to build the worshipping places (mosques) is forbidden. Or like in the Switzerland where calling to prayer (adhan) is prohibited. Comparing; it is legal to use the Church bells.

Nowadays it seems that at the least guys have more rights than Muslims in the west.

Show me an official metric that puts lots of Muslim countries at a superior level to a lot of Western countries when it comes to human rights issues. I haven't seen any such thing. All that I've seen is Western countries at the top, a couple of mostly-Muslim countries near the top group, a few more Muslim countries in the middle, and then no Western countries at the bottom, only Muslim countries. And they're not mostly-Muslim countries, they're exclusively Muslim countries.

What kind of lists have you been looking at?

[cooterhein]

Hello cooterhein,

Who runs these Muslim countries? Let's start with the GCC.

That's headquartered in the capital of Saudi Arabia, but it was founded in Abu Dhabi. It looks to me like there's a bit of competition between KSA and the UAE as to who's going to be the main decision maker in this alliance- which is not necessarily a bad thing at all. Jordan Yemen and Morocco might join, Iraq wants to join and Kuwait is okay with that, and overall it seems like this is an alliance of Gulf states in the interest of working against Iran. It does seem to be a major point of emphasis, at least. There's also some kind of recent tension between KSA and Qatar, although I don't know much of the specifics or if it's going to be significant at all.

What else can we say about the GCC?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

I am strongly implying that the developed West, on the whole, is way up here when it comes to human rights issues,

A list of countries America has bombed since WW2, millions have died. Presumably, these bombings do not come under any human rights issues, or America would be at the bottom of the list.

China 1945-46

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Belgian Congo 1964

Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Lebanon 1982-84

Grenada 1983-84

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1981-92

Nicaragua 1981-90

Iran 1987-88

Libya 1989

Panama 1989-90

Iraq 1991

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1992-94

Bosnia 1995

Iran 1998

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999

Afghanistan 2001

Libya 2011

http://www.globalresearch.ca/list-of...d-war-ii/24626

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[cooterhein]

Are they democracies?

Everyone in the GCC at this point is some kind of monarchy, and the two most probable new members- if it does expand- are also monarchies, if I'm not mistaken. I think Iraq is the only possible future member that's not a monarchy, and they may not ever be a full member.

[cooterhein]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



A list of countries America has bombed since WW2, millions have died. Presumably, these bombings do not come under any human rights issues, or America would be at the bottom of the list.

Ask yourself, does this help to answer the questions that I've been asking? Please remember that putting someone else down does not raise yourself up. Raising yourself up raises yourself up, that'll do the trick.

[AhmedGassama]

Well, 1948 was the first time ever for a credible effort at getting the entire planet on the same page with this type of thing. Since that have never happened before....bad planet?

I'm not sure what type of response people are looking for when they assert that they used to be so much better than they currently are.

That wasn't at all what I asked about in the OP. I'm asking about how Muslim countries treat non-Muslims from country to country, acknowledging that there are differences from one to the next with a curiosity as to exactly why that is. Almost everyone who's responded seems to be dissatisfied with that as a starting point and all you want to talk about is "What about our grievances against you, or anyone else?" And I've had about enough of that.

After the WW1 and the WW2 which was caused by the countries of the West, as a matter of a fact, one of the reasons of the WW was because the countries of the west were fighting each other to invade the Arab countries and the African countries. After they destroyed the world, they made that "incredible effort" to protect themselves! :nervous: but the question is are they recognizing human rights for all humans in the earth or are they recognizing human only for themselves ? Is this how we need to defend human rights ? ^o)

Anyhow, yes, all civilizations must be in a contest to make for this world a better place and to promote human rights. but of course they do not need to be in a contest of defending human rights in the way that the western countries are doing today! you agree, right ? :D

You asked us a question, i replied to you and then i asked you the same question and i'm expecting an answer from you in your next post! :Emoji44:

As for your question of asking about how the Muslim countries treat non-muslim countries, well then, we need to return back to the Quran. And the Quran told us to defend the oppressed people. So when for example the western countries make carnages like the carnage they did against the Indians in the new world, well then, Muslims must defend them!
As for peaceful countries, Muslims need to be peaceful to them and never start hostility against them and if we attack them, then that's against Islam.
But if they are not peaceful like the countries of the west now, we need to fight them! not to fight the innocent people but to fight only those who fight us.
So, your country Mr. Cooterhein, is oppressing people everywhere in the world now! And if we Muslims were strong, we would [fight for justice]. But it's okay, every civilization has it's ups and downs, we are weak now, but when we will become strong we will fight the oppressive countries again and we will spread justice and peace and listen to this, we will spread REAL HUMAN RIGHTS!

Now, reply to my question!

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Yes, in a way, it does answer your question, cooterhain. Your original thread title is, "The Uneven Response of Islam to Universal Human Rights." I'd object to the title because as I've already explained to you here and other Muslims I'm sure would agree, no Muslim-majority country today represents the ideals of Islam in itself. Therefore, Muslim-majority countries' response to universal human rights cannot be said to be the same or even equivalent to the teachings of Islam. A heinous example of that is honor killing. Honor killing in Islam is haram (forbidden), yet countries like Pakistan (which is a third-world country) has a systematic inequality for its indigent population and has one of the poorest literacy rates in the world, engages in this forbidden practice due to cultural strains dominating over Islam.

Secondly, I did address your assumptions in a previous post on page 3 and already informed you on why from even an anthropological perspective the document is imposition of neocolonialism and an attempt at redefining cultural standards to suit First World hegemonic ideals. I do not blame other countries for not signing on the document; if I was another country, I'd refrain from signing onto the document as a conscientious objector on the grounds that my unique culture's needs are made to be subservient to the dominance and hegemony of First World's ideals which I might in some cases not share and that should be seen as my right to not share. If this document was again presented to be signed in the modern context today, I'd this time object on the grounds of a conscientious objector on the grounds that I refuse to sign onto a document that Allies in the First World continually violate without any repercussions and the dominant discourse is on presumably bad actors in other regions because it is easier to point fingers than to look inside one's own collar.

Also, EricH is a Christian like yourself, but one of the things that I love about him as a person and respected member here is that his humanity, compassion, and empathy shine through his posts, and he sees human suffering, not sides.

Ask yourself, does this help to answer the questions that I've been asking? Please remember that putting someone else down does not raise yourself up. Raising yourself up raises yourself up, that'll do the trick.

[kritikvernunft]

What about international law, which deals with a whole lot of non-Muslims? Why should international law be subject to Quranic interpretation?

International treaties are only permissible if they do not conflict with Islamic law. Otherwise, they are void and not applicable to Muslims. In that sense, is a question of making sure during the negotiations that such treaty remains halal. Otherwise, Muslims, regardless of their countries of origin or residence, will be forced to regard the treaty as being unlawful.

As you can imagine, in these days of suicide bombing and wholesale shootouts, that ruthlessly decimate the pagans by the dozens, it has become very dangerous practice to attempt to enforce rules contrary to Islam against Muslims. Islamic law really has dangerous teeth. It amounts to venturing into a hornets nest. If you don't do anything rash, once in a while one of the more aggressive hornets will sting you, just for the hell of doing so. If you make sudden movements, however, they form an attack swarm and sting you in large numbers. Therefore, you would only have made the problem worse. Better not to do anything rash. But then again, your presence in the hornets nest disturbs the hornets, and therefore, the frequency at which individual hornets will sting you, tends to go up and up and up, to the point that in the end it will still look like it were an entire swarm attacking you.

I have extensively studied the hornets nest, and I actually came to the conclusion that you can trivially easily convert to something that also looks like a hornet, meaning that the other hornets will not seek to attack you. At the same time, however, they keep attacking other intruders, but that actually suits me perfectly fine, because I was sick and tired of being inundated with pagan laws anyway. In that sense, I am perfectly ok to let hornets be hornets. It also means that the intruders will never manage to get to the back of the nest, where I am sitting, because of the incessant stinging that goes on. So, yes, Ich bin ein Berliner! ("I am also a native of the city of Berlin"). Irrespective of the rules at the meta-religious level, objects of practical, real world religious engineering will always be required to be useful or else just be ignored. Purely at the mathematical level, usefulness is indeed mostly irrelevant, but in the real world, in terms of producing tools and equipment that embody these theoretical concepts and rules, usefulness does matter. In God we trust and in nothing else.

[sister herb]

Show me an official metric that puts lots of Muslim countries at a superior level to a lot of Western countries when it comes to human rights issues. I haven't seen any such thing. All that I've seen is Western countries at the top, a couple of mostly-Muslim countries near the top group, a few more Muslim countries in the middle, and then no Western countries at the bottom, only Muslim countries. And they're not mostly-Muslim countries, they're exclusively Muslim countries.

What kind of lists have you been looking at?

If you would open your eyes, you could see the western countries at the top of the list "which countries have violated the human rights the most in this world". It´s a long list, containing colonial times, massacres of native populations, robbering the natural resources and believe me, this same continues also at 2016. Also, it´s a typical the western arrogance to see the west at the top (of everything) and not to understand that the same the west has caused many of the social, economical etc problems to others.

And by the way, who´s making the kind of lists you are talking about? The west of course, measuring everything by its own values.

Now we have the situation where "the west" has decided to create their own list of the principles of the human rights, it believes they represent the human nature and it demands that everybody has to accept them and follow them. They forget two things: they think that their way to see the things is the norm and they forget to follow those high principle by themselves when it goes dealing with others.

But those others of course should follow them at every situations.

In the simple: you go to your neighbors home, hit him, insult him, make mess in there and tell to him "you have always treat other people with respect as its the basic value of the human rights". Then when your neighbor will make same to you in your home, you are terrified about his brutality. But he only followed your own example.

[Karl]

Firstly, the UN sucks. Its doing nothing in regards to the palestinian-israeli conflict so I personally dont think they have any validity or authority to tell any country what to do since its quite hypocrital. They only makes moves based on how it affects first world countries. Israel has broken MANY UN resolutions as well as international laws, so what difference does it make what we think?? If the UN allows Israel to continue what its doing then whats the point of their list of "human rights"? The UN can list a million "human rights" but it means nothing if they themselves cannot implement it. So enough about pointing fingers towards countries like saudi arabia and pakistan cuz im 100% sure whatever "rights" their governments deny them, the people will still rather be in their own respective countries than to be palestinians under occupation, isolation, and oppression.

Agreed. The UN totally sucks, mainly because it zealously seeks to foist it's own self-righteous dogmatic worldview onto all races and cultures, even ones who want absolutely nothing to do with it. I suppose that's no wonder really, given that the UN is an organization originally set up by leftists and communist Jews -- their secret agenda being to eventually use the UN to destroy sovereign nations and bring the entire world under the totalitarian boot of a collectivist New World Order. Ever read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

The thing is, even if the satanic UN DID fulfil every single thing it claims to stand for, that in itself does NOT universally legitimize the UN anyway. Really the UN is only legitimate to those who actually support it. It is NOT however legitimate to those such as myself who are its sworn enemy. The UN and "international law" is only compatible with atheistic internationalist control freaks. It is NOT compatible with the vast majority of religions, not only Islam, but even Christianity; nor is it compatible with those who simply value freedom and who want live their own domestic lives as they personally deem fit rather than what some internationalist collective of busybodies and complete strangers deem fit.

[kritikvernunft]

Agreed. The UN totally sucks, mainly because it zealously seeks to foist it's own self-righteous dogmatic worldview onto all races and cultures, even ones who want absolutely nothing to do with it.

In my own way of thinking, we should be grateful to the One God that the UN sucks so badly. If they did not suck, the UN would have even more false credibility, turning them into an even more dangerous false god.

Even in the worst things that may happen, there is always something good and for which we can be grateful to our beloved Master.

Now he has given us the UN, so that we can utilize it as spitting and pissing target, and in that way prove again our total trust in the One true God and our total distrust in this false pagan god. It is only by disbelieving and distrusting everything else that you can prove your faith in the One God.

We simply need things to hate. Life would be so boring without them.

Therefore, I am so grateful to the One True God that he gave us such utterly detestable, false pagan organization such as the UN, and such a great opportunity to shun, reject, abjure, dismiss, repudiate, and to denounce it for its utmost detestable pagan depravities!

[cooterhein]

If you would open your eyes, you could see the western countries at the top of the list "which countries have violated the human rights the most in this world". It´s a long list, containing colonial times, massacres of native populations, robbering the natural resources and believe me, this same continues also at 2016. Also, it´s a typical the western arrogance to see the west at the top (of everything) and not to understand that the same the west has caused many of the social, economical etc problems to others.

And by the way, who´s making the kind of lists you are talking about? The west of course, measuring everything by its own values.

Now we have the situation where "the west" has decided to create their own list of the principles of the human rights, it believes they represent the human nature and it demands that everybody has to accept them and follow them. They forget two things: they think that their way to see the things is the norm and they forget to follow those high principle by themselves when it goes dealing with others.

But those others of course should follow them at every situations.

In the simple: you go to your neighbors home, hit him, insult him, make mess in there and tell to him "you have always treat other people with respect as its the basic value of the human rights". Then when your neighbor will make same to you in your home, you are terrified about his brutality. But he only followed your own example.

Here's one link. https://freedomhouse.org/report/free...5#.V3l-sfkrLIX Look up whatever country you want, there's plenty of explanations to go with various scores and it's easy to see which way the scores moved from year to year.

Do you have a link? Or is this original research that you may publish at some point?

[cooterhein]

International treaties are only permissible if they do not conflict with Islamic law. Otherwise, they are void and not applicable to Muslims. In that sense, is a question of making sure during the negotiations that such treaty remains halal. Otherwise, Muslims, regardless of their countries of origin or residence, will be forced to regard the treaty as being unlawful.

What about mostly-Islamic countries that have a secular government? Do they seem to have less of an issue with worries about Islamic law and international law being in conflict?

As you can imagine, in these days of suicide bombing and wholesale shootouts, that ruthlessly decimate the pagans by the dozens, it has become very dangerous practice to attempt to enforce rules contrary to Islam against Muslims. Islamic law really has dangerous teeth. It amounts to venturing into a hornets nest.

On the other hand, when those hornets go up against drones....

If you don't do anything rash, once in a while one of the more aggressive hornets will sting you, just for the hell of doing so. If you make sudden movements, however, they form an attack swarm and sting you in large numbers. Therefore, you would only have made the problem worse. Better not to do anything rash. But then again, your presence in the hornets nest disturbs the hornets, and therefore, the frequency at which individual hornets will sting you, tends to go up and up and up, to the point that in the end it will still look like it were an entire swarm attacking you.

This is the type of thing that makes me wonder why Muslims seem to have such a different understanding from me when it comes to public space and private space. As far as I know and as far as I've experienced, private spaces can have unique rules attached to them that may be targeted in favor of a certain people-group, but then in public spaces everyone is on equal footing and the same rules apply to everyone. To me, it seems like these angry-hornet type of people feel as if there's a lot of them in a certain country, and that means the entire country is their private space. Nobody gets to enjoy the neutrality of a public space, and if anyone says otherwise there will be some extra-judicial violence.

Speaking of which, how is it that so many Muslims are so quick to go to the extra-judicial violence? Even in Western countries, even when it's perfectly well known that certain rules of Islam are not enforced by common law, the hornet's nest gets stirred up one way or another and then there's some serious violence. Extra-judicial violence, assault which is plainly illegal, and this is commonly done for specifically religious reasons. Then no matter how harmful or clearly illegal the reaction was, you've got all these Muslim onlookers who say something like, "Well....why'd that guy have to go and insult the prophet? (Or whatever the thing was). I mean, he knows we don't play around with that."

These are some people who completely lose their moral compass in defense of a religion that's supposed to make them more moral. What's up with that?

I have extensively studied the hornets nest, and I actually came to the conclusion that you can trivially easily convert to something that also looks like a hornet, meaning that the other hornets will not seek to attack you. At the same time, however, they keep attacking other intruders, but that actually suits me perfectly fine, because I was sick and tired of being inundated with pagan laws anyway. In that sense, I am perfectly ok to let hornets be hornets. It also means that the intruders will never manage to get to the back of the nest, where I am sitting, because of the incessant stinging that goes on. So, yes, Ich bin ein Berliner! ("I am also a native of the city of Berlin").

Tiny little language quibble here....Ich bin Berliner is the phrasing that would explicitly say you are a native of Berlin, whereas Ich bin ein Berliner is something that would suggest Berlin is actually not your homeland or place of residence, but you are proud to say that you have something deep and significant held in common with them that allows for a common identity on that basis. It's like saying I am one of you, Berliners, although it's well known that I wasn't born there and haven't lived there, there's a different reason. It's a claim to a common identity without claiming to be an actual, physical neighbor.

[cooterhein]

We have established that the Muslim countries of the GCC are ruled by dictators. They are not democracies. At present, the GCC is led by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia also leads a 5-member group of ambassadors, known as the Consultative Group – which is “a key UN Human Rights Council panel, with the power to select top officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations worldwide” This group has “the power to select applicants from around the world for more than 77 positions dealing with country-specific and thematic human rights mandates.” See: http://www.unwatch.org/again-saudis-...council-panel/

That's very interesting information, I recently found out there were some concerns over the UN representation on the council pertaining to human rights mainly because some of its members and some of the countries that took turns leading it have been some of the worst violators in the world. Also, this group is too large and unwieldy, and it's not doing anything for most of the year. I didn't bring it up before because it seemed like something that would lead to a tangent, but just so you know I have been looking in this type of direction.

To pick just one of their human rights endeavors, in 2011, Saudi Arabia and other members of the GCC used military force to put down a popular revolt against the Bahraini monarchy. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/wo...15bahrain.html

It seems that these Muslim monarchs don't want to listen to their people. They also stick together in protecting their power.

This leads to a tricky question that there isn't ever a very good answer to, but it does need to be asked at some point: Where do the go from here? How do they become countries that are perhaps no longer monarchies, and definitely listen to their people?

Also, do you think that the GCC can act as an alliance that helps all these countries make positive adjustments at the same time? Or is it more likely to keep everybody in the same place when it comes to this?

The following probably needs to be reflected upon the most:

“NSA Bahrain is situated in the Kingdom of Bahrain and is home to U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (CENTCOM) and U.S. 5th Fleet. NSA Bahrain provides Operational Support to U.S. and Coalition Forces operating throughout the CENTCOM area of responsibility, ensuring security to ships, aircraft, detachments, and remote sites. We operate and maintain superior facilities and services for tenant commands, their deployed assets, service members, DoD civilians and dependents.” Source: http://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnr...a_bahrain.html

What do you conclude when you reflect on this?

In reality, while these are Muslim countries, they were formed by colonial dictate and their un-elected leaders have been supported and protected by Western powers - due to various interests. These leaders are only interested in holding onto power using whatever it takes - military force, the deceptive use of Islam for political purposes, etc. We're still helping them do that.

These are very good points, especially as they pertain to colonialism. I was somewhat aware of the arbitrary abuse of cartography that led to the borders we mostly see now, but I haven't become as aware of the specifics from country to country of Western involvement in the ruling families from the outset. I do have a follow-up question pertaining to this, however.

You look at Indonesia- the fourth most populous country in the world, nearly all Muslim. It's got the most Muslims of any single country in the world. Granted, border issues are fairly non-existent since it's an island. But it does has a history of colonialism, and if you're finding Indonesians in Europe you'll probably want to look in the Netherlands.

Granted, not all colonialism is quite the same. Granted, Indonesia is not perfect- overall though I think it's pretty good on freedom and human rights issues, all sorts of things actually. As far as I'm aware, anyway. And granted, there is a tiny Chinese ethnic minority in Indonesia that's held onto an absurdly outsized share of power, money, and political clout. I'm not aware of any serious problems that have resulted from that (aside from the inequity itself), but maybe there's things I don't know about that. As it currently stands though, it seems like there are some opportunities for some really bad stuff to happen but it hasn't happened.

Ok, so here's the question. What did Indonesia do differently, or how did their colonialism go differently? Again, they didn't chart a course to perfection, but it does seem like they came away from it a lot better overall, at least in terms of the things we're mostly talking about. Also, are there some things you can point to that the GCC countries could still go ahead and do, or will they need to come up with a whole different game plan of their own?

If Indonesia isn't the best example of an Islamic country that did comparatively okay post-colonialism, what would be a better example?

[cooterhein]

And if we Muslims were strong, we would [fight for justice]. But it's okay, every civilization has it's ups and downs, we are weak now, but when we will become strong we will fight the oppressive countries again and we will spread justice and peace and listen to this, we will spread REAL HUMAN RIGHTS!

I was initially thinking this fantasy of exterminating every member of the US military and every US politician was a bit of an over-reaction. You do realize extermination generally comes across as if you want to kill and completely destroy every part of whatever you're talking about, right?

Anyway, upon further reflection I've decided it may not be quite like that. I think it's entirely possible that your eschatology is showing.

[AhmedGassama]

I was initially thinking this fantasy of exterminating every member of the US military and every US politician was a bit of an over-reaction. You do realize extermination generally comes across as if you want to kill and completely destroy every part of whatever you're talking about, right?

Anyway, upon further reflection I've decided it may not be quite like that. I think it's entirely possible that your eschatology is showing.

[I would like to stop] everyone who is oppressing people and causing death to the innocent ones and who are spreading corruption in this world. However you don't share the same idea as me, you would like them to live and do their dirty jobs.

btw, why don't you reply to my question ? why are escaping it ? are you afraid of my question ? :D