The Uneven Response of Islam to Universal Human Rights

[greenhill]

Coming in a bit late here.. but the statement by [MENTION=31950]Timi Scar[/MENTION] 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?


eace:

 

[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.

eace:

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-content/uploads/2014/03/p3-soysauce-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? 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 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 .