Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Yasnov

German Cardinal Against "equal" Status For Islam

Recommended Posts

The blaspemy laws in the USA have been unconstitutional for over 150 years. While they still may be on the books they have no legal standing.

 

The laws that you mentioned in the UK I don't agree with and should be abolished.

 

I still await your answer to my questions. I'll repeat them for you:

 

Do you agree with the following:

 

1) The laws stating that apostasy is punishable should remain on the books, specifically the ones that allow the death penalty. If you agree that they should be on the books, then do you think that should apply to all religions?

 

2) The law in Iran which prohibits those that do not follow the recognized religions from attending universities.

 

3) The law in Syria in which only Muslims may lead the country.

 

4) The law in Yemen that only Muslims may hold public office.

 

5) The laws in Egypt in which there is a different, and more difficult, process for churches to be built that Masjids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
The blaspemy laws in the USA have been unconstitutional for over 150 years. While they still may be on the books they have no legal standing.

It's still on the books

 

The laws that you mentioned in the UK I don't agree with and should be abolished.

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that it has been used.

 

I still await your answer to my questions. I'll repeat them for you:

Your questions have no basis of proof.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's still on the books

 

They are on a piece of paper somewhere, but they are not enforcable. The Supreme Court has ruled all such laws unconstitutional and therefore they no longer apply.

 

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that it has been used.

 

No, but it does show that I am consistent in my views and I have no fear of expressing my views.

 

Your questions have no basis of proof.

 

Then let me rephrase them

 

Would you have an issue with any of the following situations?

 

1) The law stating that apostasy is punishable should remain on the books, specifically the ones that allow the death penalty (such as the one in Afghanistan in which someone was tried just last year). If you agree that they should be on the books, then do you think that should apply to all religions?

 

2) If there was a law in a country which limitted only members of certain religions from attending University or receiving any other government aid.

 

3) If there was a law that only a follower of a specific religion was allowed to run a country

 

4) A law that allows only members of specific religion to hold public office

 

5) If there was a law that made it more difficult for members of some religions to build a place of worship but made it easier for others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Yasnov......Your facts are very good and I appreciate them very much. I feel so sad when ignorant people ignore the facts that you have presented. Only open-minded people appreciate your facts.

 

There are some non-Muslims who wrongly accuse Muslims of killing apostates. It is an irony that they have failed to show us any concrete evidence to support their allegations against Muslims. They don't have any official statistics to support their wild allegations. I think that they are brainwashed by anti-Islam websites that always invent fairy tales and lies to slander and insult Islam and Muslims.

Edited by wiseguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I challenge the non-Muslims who accuse Muslims of killing apostates in Muslim countries to show me any evidence and official statistics to support their allegation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are on a piece of paper somewhere, but they are not enforcable. The Supreme Court has ruled all such laws unconstitutional and therefore they no longer apply.

Still it makes me uncomfortable. Who knows what happens next...? The laws are on the books. If they are not going to enforce them then they need to remove them ... this is exactly what you said.Especially when these American people are still around ...

 

Ann Coulter: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

 

Beverly LaHaye: "Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office."

 

Henry Morris (Founder, Institute for Creation Research, died 2006): "When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data

 

James Kennedy (Center for Reclaiming America): "The Christian community has a golden opportunity to train an army of dedicated teachers who can invade the public school classrooms and use them to influence the nation for Christ."

 

Jerry Falwell: "If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."

 

Pat Buchanan (Presidential Candidate): "Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free."

 

Would you have an issue with any of the following situations?

That's a lot of 'ifs' there

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still it makes me uncomfortable. Who knows what happens next...? The laws are on the books. If they are not going to enforce them then they need to remove them ... this is exactly what you said.Especially when these American people are still around ...

 

Yes, they should be taken off the books, yet the fact still remains that the laws are unenforcable and no longer have any legal standing.

 

The people you quoted sound a bit like some Muslim leaders don't they? Just a different religion.

 

That's a lot of 'ifs' there

 

Yes, there are. Why do you keep evading answering the questions Yasnov?

 

There are no ifs in question number 1 -

 

1) The law stating that apostasy is punishable should remain on the books, specifically the ones that allow the death penalty (such as the one in Afghanistan in which someone was tried just last year). If you agree that they should be on the books, then do you think that should apply to all religions?

 

Question number 2 -

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetamnestyusa(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGMDE130832005"]Amnesty International[/url]

 

Dhabihullah Mahrami was arrested in 1995 and was sentenced to death for apostasy in 1996. His death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 1999.

 

Baha'is generally are subject to discriminatory laws and regulations which limit their access to employment and to benefits such as pensions, and for many years young people belonging to the Baha'i community have been denied access to higher education by an official requirement that applicants state their allegiance to Islam or one of three other recognized religions.

 

Or do you think Amnesty International is making this stuff up?

 

Question number 3 -

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetservat.unibe.ch/law/icl/sy00000_.html"]Syrian Constitution[/url]

 

Article 3 [Islam]

 

(1) The religion of the President of the Republic has to be Islam.

 

Now there are no more "ifs" for question 3.

 

Question number 4 -

 

The Government requires permission for the construction of new places of worship and prohibits non-Muslims from holding elected office.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetstate.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71436.htm"]Source[/url]

however, the Government forbids conversions, requires permission for the construction of new places of worship, and prohibits non-Muslims from proselytizing and holding elected office.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Islam_in_Yemen"]Source[/url]

 

Question number 5 -

 

It is expected that this proposed legislation is to jolt further public controversy as it will place both religious institutions on an equal footing.

 

Prior to this law, Churches were required to fulfill 10 challenging conditions and obtain presidential authorization to make changes in Church construction.

 

And Masjids do not need to follow difficult procedures to obtain a permit.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetdailystaregypt(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/article.aspx?ArticleID=7744"]Daily Star Egypt[/url]

 

In December the president decreed that permits for church repair and rebuilding, previously requiring his approval, could be granted by provincial governors. The purpose of this was to reduce delay. The central government continued to control the granting of permits for construction of new churches. Despite the 2005 decree, as well as a previous presidential decree in 1999 to facilitate approvals, many churches continued to encounter difficulty in obtaining permits.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetstate.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71420.htm"]Source[/url]

 

That should get rid of the "ifs" unless you can find some sources to contradict them.

 

I, once again, eagerly await either your answer or your evasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Yasnov.....I think some non-Muslims are misinformed by media that lead them to say falsely that Muslims kill apostates in Muslim countries. They don't have any evidence but Dhabihu'llah Mahrami who was not killed for apostasy from Islam ! He was imprisoned! Therefore the non-Muslims have no evidence to support their allegation that Muslims kill apostates in Muslim countries. On the contrary, in Bosnia and Kosovo hundred thousand Muslims were killed by Christians for being Muslims.

Edited by wiseguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Yasnov.....I think some non-Muslims are misinformed by media that lead them to say falsely that Muslims kill apostates in Muslim countries. They don't have any evidence but Dhabihu'llah Mahrami who was not killed for apostasy from Islam ! He was imprisoned! Therefore the non-Muslims have no evidence to support their allegation that Muslims kill apostates in Muslim countries. On the contrary, in Bosnia and Kosovo hundred thousand Muslims were killed by Christians for being Muslims.

He was imprisoned? Oh, it's a fair system then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lina Joy not allowed to marry her fiance because she used to be a Muslim. Government still considers her a Muslim and won't allow a Muslim woman to marry a Christian. Is that treating religions equally?

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Lina_Joy"]Source[/url]

 

Under the revised law passed by the northern Malaysian state of Kelantan, anyone found guilty faces a maximum penalty of six lashes with a rattan cane, five years in prison and a fine of almost us$ 3,000. The previous maximum penalty was two years in prison and a fine of RM 5,000 (US$ 1,400).

 

Hassan Mohamood, who heads Kelantan's Islamic affairs committee, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the stiffer laws are useful "as a form of deterrence".

 

Kelantan authorities are not new to taking extremist steps. Last year the PAS government passed a law giving Muslims a cash bonus worth US$ 2,700, plus a US$ 270 monthly subsidy, free housing and a car if they married and converted indigenous animist people.

 

Is this fair?

 

Abdul Rahman (Persian: ÚÈÃÇáÑÃãä) (born 1965) is an Afghan citizen who was arrested in February 2006 and threatened with the death penalty for Apostasy from Islam when he converted to Christianity. [2]

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_(convert)"]Source[/url]

 

Is this fair?

 

Hashem Aghajari (Persian: åÇÔã ÂÛÇÌÑی) is an Iranian historian, university professor and a critic of the Islamic Republic's government. He was convicted of apostasy and sentenced to death because of a speech in Hamadan that criticized some of the present Islamic practices in Iran as being in contradiction with the original practices and ideology of Islam. After widespread protests by students and reformist political parties, the sentence was later commuted to three years in jail, two years in probation, and five years' suspension of his social rights.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Hashem_Aghajari"]Source[/url]

 

So yes, there are still governments today that punish people because of their religion only.

 

Since the original topic is about equality between religions, and how this Cardinal was considered to be in the wrong to want the government to place Christianity above other religions, I simply wonder if the Muslims posting here believe the same about their own religion.

 

Or is there a double standard?

 

Either way the posters should be open and honest about their beliefs and not hide them or evade questions that would bring their opinion on this subject to light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far nobody has been able to prove that Muslims have killed apostates in Muslim countries so the allegation that Muslims kill apostates in Muslim countries is a fairy tale that is invented by the enemies of Islam to slander Islam and Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslim governments have not actually killed anyone for apostasy in the recent past, they have only arrested people for it.

 

Now that that is clear I await Yasnov's answers to my questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

###### is right, Livius. When you make a (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=41348&st=40&p=439199entry439199"]statement[/url] that in Muslim countries apostasy is punished by death and that Muslims have killed apostates in Muslim countries., you only put your credibility at stake (I mean if you have any).

 

It's like me saying that free sex and fornication are a norm in the West societies.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ghorban Tourani, killed for converting in Iran

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Ghorban_Tourani"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Ghorban_Tourani[/url]

 

For example, it is the judge who decides what constitutes apostasy. 'Abd al-Karim Mal al Allah, a Shi'a Muslim, was found guilty of apostasy and executed in 1992. It has been reported that he was told by the judge ''abandon your rejectionist beliefs or I will kill you''.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_web.amnesty(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/library/Index/engMDE230152001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES/SAUDI+ARABIA"]Amnesty International[/url]

 

Or the case of this poor man who was given a week to convert back to Islam or die. Luckily international pressure stopped this one also.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethrwf(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/religiousfreedom/news/2000PDF/zealand_2000.pdf"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethrwf(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/religiousfreedom/news/...ealand_2000.pdf[/url]

 

Now, Yasnov, will you stop the feeble attempts to not answer my questions? Why do you fear letting your opinions be known? If you have an issue with the statement I made about apostates and death then treat that as another topic, not a reason to avoid the questions I have asked you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghorban Tourani, killed for converting in Iran

According to the CIA World Factbook there are about 50 majority Muslim countries today, Livius.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghorban Tourani, killed for converting in Iran

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Ghorban_Tourani"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Ghorban_Tourani[/url]

Your link does not prove that the apostasy is punishable by death in Iran.

 

Or the case of this poor man who was given a week to convert back to Islam or die. Luckily international pressure stopped this one also.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethrwf(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/religiousfreedom/news/2000PDF/zealand_2000.pdf"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethrwf(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/religiousfreedom/news/...ealand_2000.pdf[/url]

There was no international pressure. Why donb't you read what the prosecutor said?

 

During the July 9 hearing, the general prosecutor declared that "the Muslim laws of 'sharia' [islamic law] acknowledge the freedom of joining a religion." Quoting the Koranic verse stating that "there is no compulsion in religion," the prosecutor said this "actually means that anybody can join any faith, but without joining any others." He went on to specify that any Muslim who joined another religion must not teach this new faith to others, but simply practice it "without any harm." The prosecutor concluded by calling for Haji's deportation outside the borders of the Republic of Yemen.

 

According to Aden court documents obtained by Compass, Haji testified at a June 28 hearing that he accepted the accusations of apostasy filed against him. "I hold on to Christianity and refuse to repent," the court record quoted him telling the court. Haji is believed to have a fifth grade education.

The controversial case has been mentioned in both of Yemen's English-language weekly newspapers since the story broke in the international press.

A report appearing in the "Yemen Observer" on July 19 was headlined, "Apostasy Death Penalty Reports Untrue."

"Contradicting international media reports and comments including a U.S. congressman," the news brief said, "Mohammed Omer Haji, a Somali refugee, has not been sentenced to death for apostasy and has not even been sent to trial yet. A source in Aden informed the "Yemen Observer" that Haji used religion to further his career."

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why donb't you read what the prosecutor said?

 

The part where the court said he had a week to convert back to Islam or face punishment? Yes, I read that part. It makes me glad that I live somewhere that a person won't go to prison simply because he broke a law about changing his religion.

 

Your link does not prove that the apostasy is punishable by death in Iran.

 

I have provided multiple links saying that it is. You have provided zero indicating that it isn't.

 

And once again Yasnov, you refuse to answer my questions.

 

Do I need to repeat them yet again? What is it that you are afraid of revealing to us?

 

Are you ashamed of your views on the subjects?

Edited by Livius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have answered you question a long time ago, Livius. It all depends on case by case basis.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are all specific cases

 

1) The law in Iran which prohibits those that do not follow the recognized religions from attending universities.

 

2) The law in Syria in which only Muslims may lead the country.

 

3) The law in Yemen that only Muslims may hold public office.

 

4) The laws in Egypt in which there is a different, and more difficult, process for churches to be built that Masjids?

 

These are laws that are in practice in these countries.

 

Let us take the Syria question, for example.

 

The constitution says that the leader has to be Muslim, which means that roughly 10% of the population are not allowed to be elected to this position based solely on religion. Do you agree with this law or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The part where the court said he had a week to convert back to Islam or face punishment? Yes, I read that part. It makes me glad that I live somewhere that a person won't go to prison simply because he broke a law about changing his religion.

As for the apostate who resettled in New Zealand, he is lying so that he can get assylum. He lying by saying that he was threatened with death penalty back home to get a citizenship of another country as he doesn't have the money to get the citizenship from other ways ... Just like some couples who lashed each other and said the government did it. So he picks the fastest way! You have been had, Livius.

 

I have provided multiple links saying that it is. You have provided zero indicating that it isn't.

Except for Saudi, all of your multiple links provided zero indicating that apostates are punishable by death in Muslim countries.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) The law in Iran which prohibits those that do not follow the recognized religions from attending universities.

This is wrong. Everybody, irregardless of their religion, should be allowed to have access to education. There is no point in keeping the people of the unrecognized citizens in ignorance which will only burden their state in the long run. However, please prove that what you said is true.

 

2) The law in Syria in which only Muslims may lead the country.

At least the majority are trying to be honest.

 

3) The law in Yemen that only Muslims may hold public office.

This is wrong, but do you have any proofs?

 

4) The laws in Egypt in which there is a different, and more difficult, process for churches to be built that Masjids?

No, you are wrong about this. Even if it is a little bit difficult, it's still understandable.

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least the majority are trying to be honest.

 

Honest about what?

 

No, you are wrong about this. Even if it is a little bit difficult, it's still understandable.

 

If I am wrong about this then why is the Egyptian government discussing it? I provided multiple links discussing this as a fact, including an Egyptian newspaper.

 

How is it understandable to have a process in a country in which it is easier to build places of worship for one religion, and more difficult for others?

 

This is wrong, but do you have any proofs?

 

I have provided this (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetstate.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71436.htm"]link[/url] which shows this as true.

 

Also you have (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetanswers(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/topic/Islam-in-yemen"]this link[/url].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulation to you brother Yasnov for refuting Livius's allegations. Livius is contradicting himself by making contradictory allegations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not contradicted myself at all. I maintain that all laws that discriminate based on religion are wrong.

 

Some, though, only seem to get upset when there are laws that discriminate against their own religion, yet you it is extremely difficult to get them to say anything negative when governments persecute people of other religions and make their life difficult.

 

This thread was about how horrible it was that a Cardinal would suggest that Christianity should have priority in a nation, yet I have shown multiple examples of such things actually in practice in Muslim countries with hardly a word of protest. In fact to even get an opinion out of anyone I apparently have to show 5 or more links showing that it is true when the other person cannot show a single source of information that says it is not true.

 

What is apparent is that the people who are contradicting themselves are the ones that are upset at this Cardinal, yet don't really care when Muslim government practice much worse forms of discrimination, or even worse they say it is "understandable".

 

All I ask for is consistency and honesty. I am both consistent and honest. I don't agree with laws that put people in prison for denying the holocaust. I don't agree with laws that say you have be a member of a certain religion to hold office. I don't believe in laws which treat the building of places of worship different depending on which religion you are. I don't agree with putting people in prison for changing their religion. I don't believe in denying people public funds and education because of their religion. I don't believe in telling people they cannot dress according to their religion.

 

None of my allegations have been refuted. I have provided sources for all my questions. Noone has provided a single source saying that any of them are incorrect.

 

The closest anyone has come to "refuting" me was when I was only able to come up with one instance of someone being executed for apostasy, and one example of someone that was almost executed for it. Does that make those laws any less reprehensible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×