Christians should see Muslims as 'allies'

[Abdul Fattah]

Is it obvious that religion should not have any influence in power?
Why should one support secularism. I’d say that a strict secular democracy isn’t a democracy at all. What if the majority of voters hold religious ideals? Not allowing certain groups to be elected because their viewpoint happens to be a religiously based is undemocratic. The secular states of the west dont garuantee religious neutrality; they are anti-religious.

Would it be dangerous when an single institution holds both religious control and governmental control?
Well first of all Islam isn’t an institution. You can’t compare it with the church who places rules as it sees fit. Secondly, power is dangerous regardless of its origin. Every potential can be used both negatively and positively. A secular governing might just as well be corrupt. Degenerate people in a struggle for power will always use any means necessary. Religion is a strong leverage indeed to manipulate a community. The question you need to ask is not why religion allows this deviation. Lies are always easy and quick. The question that should really bother you is: “Why is religion so strong as leverage, even if it’s only a manipulated form of it?”

Conclusion: Secular democracy is a contradiction in terms. Secularism is an open enemy both for religions due to it's antireligious nature as well for democracy for it's undemocratic position.

 

[lavikor201]

Why should one support secularism. I’d say that a strict secular democracy isn’t a democracy at all. What if the majority of voters hold religious ideals? Not allowing certain groups to be elected because their viewpoint happens to be a religiously based is undemocratic. The secular states of the west dont garuantee religious neutrality; they are anti-religious.

Secular and Religious Democracy's are not real democracys. However, senators in the USA and many secular nations can change laws witha certain percentage of the vote, and this can include religious laws. Therefore, if a huge majority of a population is religious, then these types of laws can be intorduced. Yet about 1/2 of America is liberal therefore, those laws will never come into existance. Now for Religious countries, well most religious countries refuse to allow change to religious law and rulings, even if the majority does not want them. Therefore, a Secular Democracy is possible, but is a Religious one since it is found on supposidly "Allahs" laws? Secularism in a sense is all about change, while Religion is staying consistant and not changing a word of the laws. Therefore, I would have to say your theory is incorrect.

 

[snakelegs]

well i am very thankful that i live in a secular (tho flawed!) country. i could not live in a theocracy of any kind.
i don't see how muslims and christian could see each other as allies. wouldn't conflict be inevitiable since both religions believe that they are The One True Religion. (which automaticly makes the other one false.
so i think us non-christians and non-muslims are safe for awhile.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Yea it is unavoidable. It's not impossible but there will be a few losers who dont want that. Even the minority can screw everything up for those who want to be able to live together.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Secular and Religious Democracy's are not real democracys. However, senators in the USA and many secular nations can change laws witha certain percentage of the vote, and this can include religious laws. Therefore, if a huge majority of a population is religious, then these types of laws can be intorduced. Yet about 1/2 of America is liberal therefore, those laws will never come into existance.

then by defenition it is not really secular, as it leaves room for religious laws. The only reason that it apears to be secular is because the majority does not want religious laws. That's an entirely difrrent thing from the secular idea, where it is suggested all religious involvement should activly be banned out of goverment and laws.

Now for Religious countries, well most religious countries refuse to allow change to religious law and rulings, even if the majority does not want them.

Give me one example

Therefore, a Secular Democracy is possible

How does the existance of the afore mentioned country -assuming there actually is one that fits the bill for the sake of argument- bring you to the conclusion that a secular democracy is "possible". The two are contradicting by nature. Secularism states that certain groups with certain ideals should be kept from leadership, whereas democracy says that anybody elected by a majority is entiteled reign over the country regardless of their ideals.

but is a Religious one since it is found on supposidly "Allahs" laws? Secularism in a sense is all about change, while Religion is staying consistant and not changing a word of the laws. Therefore, I would have to say your theory is incorrect.

You conclude my theory -which isn't actually a theory but more simpeler nothing more then a combination of two defenitons- is incorrect because you believe the shariah is not a good system since it leaves no room for change, right? Well first off all, wheter or not religious law is possible and or desirable, doesn't change the fact that secularism is undemocratic.
Second of all, the absence of an ability to change does not undermine the possibility of aplicability.

If we for a second assume that Let’s for a second assume the guidance of Allah (s.w.t.) is perfect. According to you it would still be automatically imperfect because it doesn’t allow change. But if you change something perfect -that by definition cannot be improved- is that change for the better; or does that change make it less perfect? Now obviously I didn’t mean perfect in a utopian sense. But rather like: “as good as it gets”. I believe Shariah to be the best possible set of rules to benefit mankind. Even if you disagree, you still have to acknowledge that theoretically speaking there is such a thing as the best way out of a given situation. So its perfection is established by the benefits it has over other options rather then being perfect in the strict utopian meaning. Now after all this being said, I take it you 're inclined to answer that my premisse: "Let’s for a second assume the guidance of Allah (s.w.t.) is perfect." Gives you enough ammunition to bring my reasoning down. Which is understandable since you hold difrent ideas. But then again. That's the whole problem here. Noramally in a democracy if a person is elected by majority he is to implement the ideals for which he was elected. Wheter it is based on a false or an accurate premisse or not. Your only reason to object would be your personal opinion: "you don't believe in the devine nature of the shariah" But if you 'd live in a hypotetical democratic country of wich the majority is Muslim, such a personal believe would be insuficient to reject to shariah being implemented in the goverment. Unless of course that is in violation with that country's constitution, which makes that country undemocratic.

What we have stumbled upon here is the democratic paradox, a pure democracy should open the posibility for an undemocratic party to come to power.

 

[blunderbus]

"So stop with ur ingnorant remarks."

"Reversion" instead of "conversion" Oh yes, it makes perfect sense now.

The thread is about Christians and Muslims working together. Could you work with a non-muslim who thought that anyone who "reverted" from their religion to your's should be killed? Or would you find that difficult?

 

[Ghazi]

After watching a documentry today entitled "End Times" on channel 4 I really don't think this is likely. Seems the comming of the 'Rapture' will ensue a great war, is this the believe of mainstream Christians or is this some sort of sect?

 

[Jayda]

the rapture is something evangelical protestants made up... its not part of christianity...

 

[Jayda]

Why is there so much anger toward secularism... it brings peace between people who seem naturally antagonistic toward each other... what is wrong with that?

 

[starfortress]

But what is the alternative? Islamic rule over all?

First thing i want you to know this is only my own opinion,could be wrong or right to you,also your question are too general and covering a variety of topics and answers.

I guess we are talking about secular and relegion implementation in laws of human life.The secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities.With the the focus everything could be archieve as long it based on logic and fact,which mean to drive human desire without limit.Money and profit come first to them,they grab any opportunity that lead to profit.

All humanbeing are born with a freewill as a skill from god.And the relegion as a guideline or perfection for life and afterlife,without it people will turn to Hippies and facing cultural fall.Like others Abrahams relegion we belief in the Day of Judgement (qiyama) and in the Resurrection.To me its a mistake to divide relegion from life,everything going to blur,human wont be able to recognise which good or bad,state of goodness cannot be archieve without relegion.

If we apply the rule with Islamic value it should be no problem,Islam should match easily to archieve the state of goodness in modern day.The problem occurs when relegion are not properly practised by it followers.Honestly I dont know how about others relegions if their doing the same thing.It is not about Islam and Christian only,but its matter of a good value that carrying and promoted by any relegion.Under the secular environment many parasitic elite will born among us then lead to the fall of civilization and morality.
Btw this is my view,maybe you have your own thinking.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

"So stop with ur ingnorant remarks."

"Reversion" instead of "conversion" Oh yes, it makes perfect sense now.

The thread is about Christians and Muslims working together. Could you work with a non-muslim who thought that anyone who "reverted" from their religion to your's should be killed? Or would you find that difficult?

The view that apostates should be killed is unislamic. In depth explenation of that specific rule in green:

"Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and thereafter go on increasing in
disbelief, Allah will never forgive them, nor guide them to any way of deliverance". (4:137)
I think that it would immediately be obvious that if a person were to be put to death for apostasy,
i.e. for disbelieving, it would not be possible to "believe, then disbelieve, then again believe,
then disbelieve..."

A basic tenet in Islam is that there is no compulsion in religion. Death for apostasy therefore does not make
any sense, unless such apostasy was accompanied by a betrayal of or treason or enmity/fighting against
the Islamic state/community.

Perhaps it may be useful to look into the context and circumstances of the hadiths decreeing the death penalty
so that this controversial (and to me unnecessary) subject is laid to rest.

My opinion is close to that in the following article:

"Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law?" by Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D.
President of the Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc.

Ridda or Irtidãd: Literally means "turning back". The act of apostasy -- leaving Islam for another religion or
for a secular lifestyle. Murtadd: Literally means "one who turns the back." An apostate.
Murtad Fitri: Literally means apostate - natural. A person born of a Muslim parent who later rejects Islam.
Murtad Milli: Literally means apostate - from the community. A person who converted to Islam and later rejected
the religion.

Due lack of education and critical thinking several myths have taken root in the Muslim world over the ages,
and there have not been any efforts in the past to clear these doubts. On the contrary, there has been a sort of
effort to strengthen these myths and misconceptions. These misinterpretations of Islamic teachings have taken
their toll on the Muslim world and have strengthened a misplaced perception that Islam is a symbol of obscurantism,
a religion of intolerance and answers everything with the sword.

And there is no bigger misconception-strengthened with misunderstanding of Islamic beliefs over the years-other
than the belief that Islam doesn't tolerate apostasy. The Christian missionaries and the Western world are cashing
in on it. Ulama have tried to strengthen their point of view and several leading Muslim reformists have failed to
tackle the issue. This misconception has also presented Islam as a medieval and killer religion.
Islam bashers have time and again tried to carry the point by pointing out that Islam orders the killing of a
person if he or she reverts to another religion from Islam.

No body is forthcoming to challenge this widely held belief as well as put forth a convincing argument about the
misinterpretation of Qur'anic teachings by Ulama.

The Qur’an is completely silent on any worldly punishment for apostasy and the sole Tradition that forms the basis
of rulings is open to many interpretations.

Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: ‘Whosoever changes his religion, Kill Him (man baddala Dinahu faqtuluhu)’”
It is this last quote from the Prophet that forms the basis of the said ruling.

While jurists are agreed on the authenticity of this tradition, they differ very widely on the appropriate
interpretation and thus, the law concerning apostasy. Understanding the different viewpoints, and arriving at the
truth is crucial to our discussion of this subject.

This tradition does not refer to Muslims who leave the religion of Islam for other religions. Finally, there is the
crucial dispute over the nature of the punishment and the crime. Al-Nakha’ee and, according to Sha’rani,
al-Thawri, hold that the apostate is a grave sinner who should however be continuously called back to the fold for
the rest of his life, and not killed. By implication, they do not consider the offence a hadd (fixed penalty)
offence with a fixed punishment that must be carried out. This view is similar to the view that apostasy is a
sin that carries no fixed punishment, and any penalty for it is discretionary (ta’zeer). This is a view held by
the Hanbali scholar, Ibn Taimiya and he attributes it as well to the Maliki Imam al-Baji. Among Hanafites,
the jurist Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi holds the same view. He says in al Mabsut that the fixed penalties or hudud
are generally not suspended because of repentance, especially when they are reported and become known to the Imam.
He then adds in the case of apostasy “renunciation of the faith and conversion to disbelief is admittedly the
greatest of offences, yet it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the day
of Judgement. (“fa’l jaza’ ‘alayha mu’akhkhar ila dar al-jaza”).

If repentance is accepted, then apostasy is not a hadd offence with a fixed punishment. Secondly, once scholars
accept that a Muslim apostate has the right to be given the opportunity to repent, they lose the right to set
a time limit for his repentance.

Allah (SWT) says in the Glorious Qur’an (39: 53-54: Say: “ O you servants of Mine who have transgressed against
your own selves! Despair not of God’s mercy. Behold God forgives all sins, for verily He is much forgiving,
a dispenser of grace! Hence, turn toward your sustainer and surrender yourselves unto him before the suffering
(of death and resurrection) comes upon you for then you will not be succored.”

Any scholar who says the death sentence applies to leaving the faith, then the convict is to be given a life-time
to repent, and this is the view of Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibrahim al-Nakha’ee, Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi, Imam al-Baji
and, by strong implication, Ahmad Ibn Taimiya. One must conclude that the death sentence is not for
“simple apostasy” (mujarrad al-ridda), but for apostasy accompanied by treason and sedition, or by the abuse
and slander (sabb) of the Noble Prophet.

Freedom to convert to or from Islam

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his
religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest
his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Article 18 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.

The Glorious Qur'an says, "Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct
from the crooked path." Al Baqarah, 2:256.

"Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief
- Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137.

For example, the Qur'an says: "Let him who wishes to believe, do so; and let him who wishes to disbelieve, do so."
(Al-Kahf: 29)

In another verse, Allah Almighty says: "Yours is only the duty to convey the message; you are not a guardian over
them." (Al-Ghashiyah: 21- 22)

The quotation from Surah An-Nisa', 4:137, shown above, seems to imply that multiple, sequential apostasies are
possible. That would not be possible if the person were executed after the first apostasy.

From the above verses it can be argued that religious freedom and the absence of compulsion in religion requires
that individuals be allowed adopt a religion or to convert to another religion without legal penalty.

Hence the death penalty is not an appropriate response to apostasy.

The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, SA Rahman, has written that there is no reference to the death penalty in
any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an.

Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy use as their foundation the above cited hadith, in which the
Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: "Kill whoever changes his religion." But this is a weak foundation
because this hadith was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. It was not confirmed by a
second person. According to Islamic law, this is insufficient confirmation to impose the death penalty.
The Shari`ah has not fixed any punishment for apostasy.

The hadith is so generally worded that it would require the death penalty for a Christian or Jew who converted
to Islam. This is obviously not the prophet's intent. The hadith is in need of further specification, which has
not been documented. Many scholars interpret this passage as referring only to instances of high treason.
(e.g. declaring war on Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), God, etc.).

There is no historical record, which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced
anyone to death for apostasy.

The issue of killing a murtad or the apostate is not a simple one. Scholars have debated it from various angles
and it is not simply an issue of killing someone for choosing one religion or another.

The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since
the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the
Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that
he wanted to apostate. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took any action against him, and when
the man finally left Madina, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him,
let alone kill him.

This is why some scholars distinguished between individual apostasy and apostasy which is accompanied by high
treason. So, it cannot be confused with the freedom of conscience for every individual, which has been guaranteed
in the Qur'an through hundreds of verses.

For example, one version of a hadith narrated by `A'isha (RA) concerning apostasy relates to one who left his
religion and fought against Muslims.

QUR'ANIC VIEWS

The Qur’an has referred to the issue of apostasy at more than one place (for example see Al-Baqarah 2: 217,
Al-Baqarah 2: 108, A’l Imra’n 3: 90, Al-Nisa’ 4: 137 and Al-Nahl 16: 106). But at none of these places does
the Qur’an mention the punishment of death for such people who change their religion. The Qur’an does mention
that such people shall face a terrible punishment in the hereafter but no worldly punishment is mentioned at
any of these instances in the Qur’an. This situation obviously raises a question mark in the mind of the reader
that if Allah had wanted to give the punishment of an apostate a permanent position in the Shari`ah, the
punishment should have been mentioned, at least at one of the above mentioned places. If the Qur’an had kept
completely silent about the apostate, the matter would have been different. But the strange thing is that the
Qur’an mentions apostasy, and still does not mention the punishment (if any) it wants the apostate to be subjected
to.

Furthermore, the Qur’an has strictly disallowed the imposition of the death penalty except in two specific cases.
One of them is where the person is guilty of murdering another person and the other is where a person is guilty of
creating unrest in the country (fasa’d fil-ardh) like being involved in activities that create unrest in a society,
for example activities like terrorism etc. The Qur’an says:

Whoever kills a person without his being guilty of murder or of creating unrest in the land, it is as though he
kills the whole of mankind. (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32)

Obviously, apostasy can neither be termed as "murder" nor "creating unrest in the land".

Thus, in view of the above facts, we are left with one option only. We can only say that either the saying has
been wrongly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), as it is clearly contradictory to the Qur’an and the Prophet could
not have said anything contradictory to the Qur’an, or that the saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) relates not
to all apostates but to a particular and specific people.

Shaykh Subhani

Shaykh Inayatullah Subhani (author of the Book Apostasy doesn't carry death penalty in Islam) says that neither
Islam forces any person to embrace neither Islam nor it forces him to remain within its fold. He writes,
"Apostasy has been mentioned several times in Qur'an. It also describes the bad treatment that will be meted out
for committing apostasy, but it never talks of punishment for the crime in this world." The learned scholar
mentions three Ayaat (verses) from Qur'an on apostasy (Al-Baqara 217, Muhammad 25-27 and Al-Maida 54) and then
says that none of these Ayaat prescribes any punishment for that though these Ayaat pass strictures on the people
who commit it. There are several other Ayaat on the same issue and none of them prescribes either death penalty or
any other punishment for apostasy in this world. He then adds that had there been some punishment in Islam for
apostasy there was no reason as to why the issue was mentioned repeatedly in Qur'an but no punishment was
prescribed.

Misinterpretation of the hadith, Man baddala Dinahu faqtuluh (kill him who changes his religion) has caused the
problem. This order has been made to look general and permanent, though it was said in a particular circumstance
for a particular group. Shaykh Subhani writes that this order was made to counter a scheme prepared by Jews of
Madinah. They had planned that some of them embrace Islam for some time and then return to their old religion.
Then some other people do the same. It was aimed to create restlessness among Muslims against their own leadership
so that the strong Muslim unity should start crumbling. It was made clear in Qur'an in (Aal Imran, 3: 72-73).

To counter this planning the Prophet (SAW) ordered his companions to act in such a manner. Despite this order
lengthy investigations were made to ascertain that the case was true and the person concerned was given adequate
time to explain before the punishment was carried out.

Shaykh Subhani says lack of clear grasp of Qur'an misguided even leading Ulama. Otherwise it was not difficult to
understand the hadith. Qur'anic teachings on the issue were not kept in mind.

He emphasizes that people who were awarded death penalty for reverting to other religions from Islam during the
time of the Prophet (SAW) or during the reign of his caliphs were not given the punishment for the crime of
apostasy but for the fact that they were at war with Muslims and Islamic government.

Shaykh Subhani regrets that punishment that was prescribed for certain people under special circumstances was made
to look like a general order. He says that it was the order for people who posed threat to Islamic state and
became at war with Islam and not for any person who reverts to other religion.

A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi,
Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires
the death penalty. In modern times, Mahmud Shaltut, Sheikh of al-Azhar, and Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi have
concurred.

In conclusion, we must never confuse the issue of killing a murtad with the freedom of conscience guaranteed in the
Glorious Qur'an. For a detailed discussion, one should read (1) the Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi's book on this issue:
Jareemat ar-riddah wal murtadd (The Crime of Apostasy and Apostate) - published by Ar-Risalah foundation.

(2) Apostasy doesn't carry death penalty in Islam (Book: Tabdili-e-Mazhab aur Islam) by Maulana Inayatullah
Asad Subhani)-published by Idara Ihya-e-Deen, Bilariya Ganj, Azamgarh (UP, India) Pages: 108, Price Rs 30.

REFERENCES
1. http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos.htm

2. "Islam, Apostasy and PAS," 1999-JUL-22, at: http://www.muslimtents.com/sistersinislam/

3. S.A. Rahman, "Punishment of apostasy in Islam," Kazi Publ., (1986). Limited availability from Amazon.com online
bookstore).


@Jayda

Why is there so much anger toward secularism... it brings peace between people who seem naturally antagonistic toward each other... what is wrong with that?

I don't see how secularism is supposed to bring peace. To me it seems like a lame excuse for the atheists to surpress the religious ones. So I wouldn't see it as a tool for peace.

 

[wilberhum]

Glo,
Excellent post! I have only one problem with what you state. That is “God's way”.
What is “God's way”? Some would say that listening to music is against “God's way”. Others have no problem with it. This is just one of many different definitions of things that are part of “God's way”. With the many different definitions, we will never come to an agreement. So the best way it for the state to stay out of it and allow people to follow there own version of “God's way”. It is not a perfect way, just the best way for all.

 

[wilberhum]

Steve,

I don't see how secularism is supposed to bring peace. To me it seems like a lame excuse for the atheists to surpress the religious ones. So I wouldn't see it as a tool for peace.

Well we have proven that religion does not bring peace. Atheists suppress religious? I think the vast majority of atheists could care less what the religious do. They just don’t want it forced on them or to have to pay for it.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Its not the religion that breaks peace, its the people who are too stupid to understand it.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Steve,
Well we have proven that religion does not bring peace.

That's a matter of interpretation. I'd say warmongers abuse religion as a scapegoat.

Atheists suppress religious? I think the vast majority of atheists could care less what the religious do. They just don’t want it forced on them or to have to pay for it.

so how do you explain for all the surpressions in "secular" countrys? Take turkey for example. There's a hijab ban in govermental buildings and schools. The army has repeatedly stopped democratic elected parties because they were to "Islamic". There was even a time in the beginning of the secular state where people got arrested for wearing a beard, cause every turkish guy should have a mustach. All of this under the guise of "secularism". And we see it's catching on. France now also has a hijab ban. Belgium has followed immediatly after but luckely for the muslimah's here; in Belgium it's only public schools, private schools can do as they please. But in turkey, even the academys funded for 100% only by religious groups and hence costing absolutely nothing to the goverment can not permit to allow hijab for they would no longer be officially recognised if they do. You don't want to be forced? That's a lame excuse. How can you be supportive to the supression of one group only for the garuantee of your own. That's proposterous.

 

[glo]

Glo,
Excellent post! I have only one problem with what you state. That is “God's way”.
What is “God's way”? Some would say that listening to music is against “God's way”. Others have no problem with it. This is just one of many different definitions of things that are part of “God's way”. With the many different definitions, we will never come to an agreement. So the best way it for the state to stay out of it and allow people to follow there own version of “God's way”. It is not a perfect way, just the best way for all.

Wilberhum, you will have to stop by more often!
It's been so long, I had to check which post you were referring to ... :giggling:
(I suppose it is #30?)

You are right 'God's way' was a poor choice of words ... I think by that time I was running out of steam! :rollseyes
What I mean by 'God's way', I suppose, is what each monotheistic group believes to be God's will for their lives. (Give and take a few details here and there, we don't actually differ all that much! ... I think! :rollseyes )

Peace

 

[wilberhum]

That's a matter of interpretation. I'd say warmongers abuse religion as a scapegoat.


so how do you explain for all the surpressions in "secular" countrys? Take turkey for example. There's a hijab ban in govermental buildings and schools. The army has repeatedly stopped democratic elected parties because they were to "Islamic". There was even a time in the beginning of the secular state where people got arrested for wearing a beard, cause every turkish guy should have a mustach. All of this under the guise of "secularism". And we see it's catching on. France now also has a hijab ban. Belgium has followed immediatly after but luckely for the muslimah's here; in Belgium it's only public schools, private schools can do as they please. But in turkey, even the academys funded for 100% only by religious groups and hence costing absolutely nothing to the goverment can not permit to allow hijab for they would no longer be officially recognised if they do. You don't want to be forced? That's a lame excuse. How can you be supportive to the supression of one group only for the garuantee of your own. That's proposterous.

Isn't it amazing what those atheists will do? All problems are caused by atheists. I'm glad to know that. I though the US was responsible for all problems. :rant:

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

omg looool...someones gunna hate u for that comment...
i have a feeling!! lol

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Isn't it amazing what those atheists will do? All problems are caused by atheists. I'm glad to know that. I though the US was responsible for all problems. :rant:

I didn't bring up US, Us isn't the only place that has to cope with atheists you know.

Nice try, but doesn't cut the mustard.
Do try again...

 

[wilberhum]

Wilberhum, you will have to stop by more often!
It's been so long, I had to check which post you were referring to ... :giggling:
(I suppose it is #30?)

You are right 'God's way' was a poor choice of words ... I think by that time I was running out of steam! :rollseyes
What I mean by 'God's way', I suppose, is what each monotheistic group believes to be God's will for their lives. (Give and take a few details here and there, we don't actually differ all that much! ... I think! :rollseyes )

Peace

But you still have the same problem. There are a thousand different versions of what is "God's will for their lives". How do you make them into laws. Do you have different laws for each religion? Well that won't work because each religion has different sects with different rules. Combining church and state an only be done if you select a state religion. Any place that has a state religion, in my openion, would be horrable for anyone not belonging to the state religion. I want a place that is good for everyone.