From news article:
From news article:
Waiting for reaction of our Muslim posters..... They'll of course blame it on Israel and such....
Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.
I would like some clarification overOriginally Posted by MediocratesI would like to know whatthere is no compulsion in religion
means?consensus of the Muslim nation
you want to close eyes as it is ain't our problem, but it is-- cause eventually it will reach to our shores. the holocaust hap cause people close their eyes and opened it when it was to late. I don't want this to happen again.
Nothing new there, really. This is the actual situation not only in S.A. but also e.g. Egypt and I guess other muslim countries.
As many people in Europe as possible should read this, while they see big S.A. funded mosques going up around them, and muslims try to impose their sensitivities on everybody else.
I don't really want another muslim asking for tolerance - I really do not.
Well of course, why wait for us to speak? I put as much credence in pronouncements coming from Saudi as Medio does. We don't have a Pope and he doesn't live there. BTW, what does the Pope say concerning the erection of mosques in Vatican City? What did the Pope say when papal control extended beyond its walls?Originally Posted by Mil
The support of the Pope is meaningless since some French got murdered by the guard there. After Torquemada Venice invented 'secularization' and then the Habsburgs did the same, in a small triangle of their estate.
I think two Popes were building mosques, John Paul II helped the efforts of building that big one in Rome.
The first mosque in Italy that was destroyed - was destroyed because the Italians hated the Habsburg soldiers.
Diokletian had two residences, one was in Aquilea, the other one in Split. Jerome, probably not Illirian, was sceptical about Greece... Gnostics thought Turkey was Samaria, Bohemia Judea... They distorted the meaning of Norea.
Constantin thought of all those other parts, some of which were clinging to Bellenus (Aquilea) and Triglav stubbornly to the 13th century. But that's just because we couldn't get along with the Germans and had a civil war.
Noricum had freedom of religion, in practice that meant some Jewish and Greek art etc. The third part of Noricum is somewhat similar to Mithraic. Christian meant anti Arian. Saracen invaders were meaningless (8th, 9th century) compared to Avars and Magyars. Eventually there was even correspondence between Dalmatia and Spain. After the French sacked us Pope forbade sacking us and the Ottomans probably ignoned all treaties with the Croats because they had a Pope in Rome.
If Islam is superior to other religions, I'm sure the followers are more than willing to put it into a neutral test. An excellent way to convince non-believers, provided it makes all the wonders it claims.
I'd say that everywhere that isn't a Sharia state is a neutral test. Sharia states themselves are oppressing people more to flex their political muscle than because Sharia itself is oppressive. I have always contended that banning none Muslims from Arabia and even from Mecca is not an Islamic requirement. My proof is that there were Jews and Christians living in Mecca until after the death of the Prophet (SAW). Since it doesn't say that in the Quran and Muhammad didn't say it, then it isn't Sunna.
As to the heresy part, what monotheist religion doesn't believe that all other religions are heresy? My Baptist aunt is convinced that my family is going to be dancing in flames someday. Monotheism is about one God and one path and a myriad of descriptions of what that path is.
Why do believers of many religions always threat with these extremes? Why not with something much more likely, such as bankruptcy, prison sentence, fatal disease, etc.Originally Posted by andak01
It does JustcuriousOriginally Posted by Justcurious
Did you know that when American troops were stationed in Saudi , how many were converting to Islam? Khaled bin Sultan and General Shwarzkoff, used to joke about it.
Ygalg, the opinion of one scholar doens't speak for the whole Muslim world. Saudi today follows a very extreme version of the faith.Originally Posted by ygalg1
The ban against non Muslim's is for political purposes. Not religious ones. The majority of ulammah (scholars) will disagree with this decision. The Quran gives freedom of worship, and The Prophet placed no such restrictions. When Saudi didn't even exist, these restrictions were not there. Hijaz had a very tolerant attitude toward's non Muslim's in general.
Other than a ban in the five mile radius in Mecca and Medina (because the 2 cities are a religious sanctuary) there is no need for restrictions elsewhere.
Just to give an insight into what these scholars are thinking, .......one of them was saying.....
"why should we respect their religions when they are throwing dirt on ours every day"
He was referring to the negative publicity in the media. This sort of thing, colours their vision, and they add their own personal "flavour" to these religious edicts, which they clearly shouldn't be doing.
But where was the competition? Surely there are some links.Originally Posted by Muslima
What are you talking about?Originally Posted by Justcurious
By competition do you mean other religions? WEll remember these men were American's, and not tied to Saudi, they can follow any religion they want, they do know about other religions.
Was that your point? Or are you saying that if there were other religions they could pick those? In that case i'd point you to Europe and other countries, where people convert.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)