What exactly had Iraq done to warrant turning their country into Somalia?
We’re the world’s most powerful nation by a large margin. Even though we are probably the most benevolent hegemonic power in the history of the world, human nature assures that we will be hated by most of the world no matter how nice we are. Hatred of America is not enough to go blow up a country.
I thought I had made it clear. The rapid rise of the Muslim population. It is rising at a remarkable rate in England (for example). Many Americans (rightly or wrongly) will take it as a warning and not want similar happening to them.
What’s wrong with a rising Muslim population? Be specific.
Is there a point in that snarkish post?
Prohibition against Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men, and prohibition against Muslim men from marrying women who are not people of the Book.
One hopes that as Muslims westernize (e.g. the Nizari Ismailis) that this practice would eventually cease.
Then there’s that whole anti-homosexuality thing.
And occasionally sick opinions on slavery.
There’s a lot to be said against most religions propagating, for they pretend to have moral authority from on high, but often their morals are immoral by any reasonable standard.
Polling (I’ve posted the cite before, and I’ll find out again later if you like) shows that American Muslims are more tolerant of homosexuality than American groups like Mormons and evangelical Christians.
That is silly.
The rise in the Muslim population of Britain is not going to affect the overall British population to any great extent.` Muslims currently stand at a bit less than 5% of the population and their Total Fertility Rate has followed the standard immigrant model, falling as the people assimilate with the larger population over the years.
It is true that Britain has had a spate of issues with the recent immigrant populations who have tended to be rural groups from violence prone regions of Pakistan trying to make new lives in urban Britain. However, immigrants to Britain do not need to cross the Atlantic Ocean to settle there and there is no reason to suppose that the U.S. (or even the U.S. and Canada), will ever see a similar rise in an immigrant Muslim population.
Yup. Those are good examples that support my statement that “There’s a lot to be said against most religions propagating.”
But your “statement” is being used as cover for discriminating against one religion in particular, even in situations where practitioners of that religion happen to be less bigoted and oppressive than practitioners of the religions you’re not bothering to preach against.
You seem to be utterly unaware that that “prohibition” is already being routinely ignored in immigrant communities.
A French poll from 2005 found that around 80% of Muslims were “comfortable with people of different religions dating or marrying” while 59% would not object to their daughter marrying a non-Muslim. (This is born out in the fact that 25% of French Muslim women have married non-Muslim men.)
Citation: Jonathan Laurence and Justin Vaisse, Integrating Islam: Political and Religious Changes in Contemporary France (Brookings Institution Pres, 2006), 43.
Homeland Security had the power to screen all visa applicants, even interrogate them before entry. The Trump ban was lifted. Zero terrorists were identified since the temporary lift.
You paranoids will just need to wait till one of them gets radicalized.
First, show me the preaching. Stating simple facts of fundamental religious beliefs that run contrary to fundamental human rights is hardly preaching, particularly when my statement was specifically contextualized by mentioning other religions as also being culpable. If you think that I preach against Muslims, I suggest you come up with some examples in this thread or elsewhere where you believe that I have preached against Muslims. Let’s start with this anti-Muslim discriminatory screed:
Second, you state that my statement is being used as cover for discriminating against one religion in particular. Please note that facts are facts and this is Great Debates, in which arguments are supposed to be built upon that are relevant to the discussion. I call out discrimination when I come across it. Remember that two wrongs do not make a right. A valid question was made, and I correctly answered it. That it goes hard against Islam is up to Islam to deal with, rather than for me to conceal. Don’t go sweeping the facts under the carpet. If you think that a debate should ignore facts that are both relevant and significant, then you and I disagree on what a debate should be and on how arguments should be constructed.
tomndebb has put forward a relevant fact: “that “prohibition” is already being routinely ignored in immigrant communities.” (And yes, I very aware of and glad to see the trend --btw “challenges” not “changes”.) Let’s dig deeper. Is the prohibition ignored by Imams who preside at such marriage ceremonies, or is it that over time families and communities are growing more tolerant of women who have civil marriages to non-Muslim men? I think you’ll find that it is the latter rather than the former. I look forward to the day when there will be no prohibition and no social stigma associated with marriage outside of one’s religion, but with the religions of The Book, the dogma runs deep.
(BTW, if anyone knows a legitimate Sunni Imam (but not a Shia Nizari Ismaili Imam for that runs into something similar to the “Mormons are not Christians” problem) in Canada or the USA who will advise a Sunni woman that marriage to an atheist man is not haram, and who will preside at the marriage ceremony (but not an Imam who is simply willing to turn a blind eye while the man falsely pretends to be a Muslim), please IM me with the Imam’s name and contact info.)
Third, preaching against non-islamic religions would only lead this thread off topic, so don’t complain about my not going into detail about the many great failings of Christianity. I’d be glad to, for I’m an atheist who is greatly troubled by the political impact of the religious right here at home in the Conservative leadership race, and in the USA which has significantly contributed to the most militarily powerful and economically powerful country in the world in the little hands of a narcissistic fascist – but that is not the topic of this thread. If you want, by all means go dig about the SDMB for my posts that are critical of Christianity (I expect that there are quite a few anti-fundie posts) and link them or copy excerpts of them here, despite them not being relevant to this debate.
Okay, now lead the logic to its conclusion. The rise of the muslim population from 3% to 5% over the past 10 years is a huge problem that we should avoid at all costs because…?
You don’t know if anyone with a bloody suitcase is carrying an assault rifle or a bomb.
ETA: Didn’t notice this thread was this long when I replied to a post from the first page. Mods, please delete.
In a nutshell, to quote Bill Maher last night it’s “lack of assimilation”.
What is it with “liberals” that they can’t grasp the simple truths explained patently by Bill, over and over. If you’ve been missing out google Islam+thick liberals+Maher+Charlie Rose.
There are plenty more informative clips available like that.
He’s just wrong about Muslims in America – the polling shows that they’re more “assimilated” in terms of things like accepting and tolerating homosexuality, than evangelical Christian or Mormon Americans.
There is no “presiding” by an Imam, this is a christian idea and practice. The concept is not in the religion itself.
the copying of the practice of the christian type ceremony I have no objection to, but it is not the fundamental practice of islam, normally there is simply the marriage contract, al-3qd. For the religious marriage itself it is only necessary to have an 3doul register the contract
Even if true, on the homosexual front, those migrating may well not be. In tolerant England (an example to the world) 71% of British Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal. That’s seventy one percent.
I was listening to LBC yesterday and the female presenter described the public beating of the woman in Indonesia, for infidelity, as “savagery”. People were queuing up on the phone-in to say what a disgrace she was to use that word, claiming she was Islamophobic and inciting hatred against Muslims.
You really couldn’t make it up.
Thanks, Ramira. I appreciate your comment. So scratch the term preside, officiate, or conduct or any such synonym, and for this particular wedding replace it “with the guy who is one of the witnesses as is required under islamic law, and although not necessary in Islamic law also happens to give the khutba-tun-nikah, and although not necessary to Islamic law also happens to be an Imam, all as per the personal wish of the bride in this particular matter.”
So the bride is making her own requirement that is outside of the religion.
That is her choice.
The only requirement in the Sunnah is two witnesses, and the Hanafi accept 1 male 2 female
It is this girls making her own life complicated, not the requirements of the Islam.