Not sure your analogy applies. "Freedom of expression" should permit people to say whatever they want, with certain well recognized exceptions (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.). Using drugs is not saying anything; it is conduct that can be prohibited for the good of the offender and the society he is a member of.
Every country is sovereign. It is true, therefore, that any country can make laws prohibiting the preaching of the Christian Gospel, as Saudi Arabia has done, for example. Christians within such country and subject to its jurisdiction must obey its laws or be prepared to face the consequences. A similar situation existed when Peter was preaching and the Jews ordered him to stop. His response? It is recorded in Acts 5:29 - - But Peter and the apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than men." The consequence? The high priest and council did not like that and "took counsel to slay them" (verse 33). But a very wise Pharisee named Gamaliel advised against that, saying,
38. "And so my advice is, leave these men alone. If what they teach and do is merely on their own, it will soon be overthrown.
39. But if it is of God, you will not be able to stop them, lest you find yourselves fighting even against God.''
40. The Council accepted his advice, called in the apostles, had them beaten, and then told them never again to speak in the name of Jesus, and finally let them go.
41. They left the Council chamber rejoicing that God had counted them worthy to suffer dishonor for his name.
42. And every day, in the Temple and in their home Bible classes, they continued to teach and preach that Jesus is the Messiah.
Brother of the book, Im saying is that the state will always look after its people. the example of drugs was to show you my idea and not the literal example. Plus if your assuming here that christianity is the truth and thus posting this verse from the bible wont do much in your argument because its just a narrow subjective reference. I can post the same argument from the quran and say we have to preach everywhere, it does not prove anything
So, what you're saying, if I understand your post, is that Islam needs the laws and acts of an islamic state "for a muslim community to stand tall"? Islam needs laws to hold it up, or the people would not follow it? So what you have is forced believers, making people believe by force of the laws, etc.? You need compulsion among Muslims or Islam would fall?
Well if your saying the goverment will let everything lose then things will get out of control. Its like saying , why is the police putting radars on the roads they should trust the people and let them drive as they like. But brother its always the state mission to prevent collateral damage. thus the same idea applies here. The protection of the socio-economic factor of the country.
Because the God of the Old Testament is not saying it.
Read verse : Deuteronomy 13:6-18
from the old testament this proves that its written there brother
Please explain. The "no compulsion" verse applies to non-Muslims? Meaning what? Non-Muslims are under no compulsion to follow Islam? But they can't follow their own religion, without being killed?
Meaning people of the book dont have to follow yes , but the second part is the one I find you strange addressing , since when are people of the book compulsed to follow islam ??? we have a term called "zhimmi" coming from the arabic root word "zhima" which means also responsiblity. Non muslims living under as islamic state are referd to as "zhimmi" as they are the resposiblities of the muslims. So if such term exists in the quran and the suna then how are you saying that non muslims must convert???
Peace
