It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No, do you understand what a request is?
No one is imposing anything that you speak of, requests have been made which don't have to be met.
Hey, I do not see one difference between Sharia and Sunni. The problem is this. When it comes down to it, they both murder people for extremist reasons. Whether its stealing a loaf of bread, adultery or any other crime. If you are going to label Sharia extremist then you may aswell label the entire religion as one extremist.
Originally posted by dontreally
If you can't handle it, don't pay attention to our culture. Ignore us. But DO NOT tell us how to think, or feel or act.
Originally posted by templar knight
One of the 10 Commandments from Moses (revered by both Islam and Christians) is "thou Shalt not Kill".
What if they want to create a form of democracy, or whatever form of government they choose, that fits their lifestyles and beliefs?
The most important thing we can do is let them decide for themselves and not put criteria or expectations on something that is not ours.
I think you're missing the point. What Islam is and how it conducts itself in government affairs is none of our concern. It's none of our business!
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by InhaleExhale
No, do you understand what a request is?
Yes, I do understand a request. A request made between one party and another is a reasonable request. A request that's made between one culture - Islam - with the west, asking the latter to abide by the moral protocols of the former, is not a fair request. In fact, it nullifies the very nature of the latter's philosophical position.
Sure, they can ask; but the ask always carries with it the threat of: in our culture, if someone made a video like that, he would be killed. That is the extremity of their law. It's not like they just dislike the insult to their religion; they vociferously loathe it. They go to the furthest extent possible to punish those who do it.
It is nothing but idiocy and shoddy reasoning that see's this request of the party which rules Egypt as being 'nothing but' a request. It's a demand of Shari'a, and given Islams history, shari'a demands certain things of non-Muslims, one of which, you cannot insult or deprecate the prophet of Islam, or the Sunnah. The consequence for such an infraction is death, by the law.
No one is imposing anything that you speak of, requests have been made which don't have to be met.
I realize that. But I also suspect a desire to impose their culture on us; the very act itself testifies to it.
Let me give you an example from myself. I don't approve of homosexuality mainly for metaphysical reasons. However, since I know the position of the other - that which is not myself - and can see how they can feel as if it is a justifiable act, I accord them the right to do so. Thus, my desire will never actually infringe on their right; I will not go about telling homosexuals "not to" go about. I may not like it, I may find it obnoxious when they kiss in public, but I'll keep shut about it. It's my own personal affair.
This is what democracy requires. If they can't shut their mouth and do what I just described before, that is, recognize the ideological basis of those who defend the right to free speech, and respect that right, then they show that their culture is incompatible with democratic society.
And it also justifies my caution in forewarning those who don't know this that democratic law does not permit them to live in strict obedience to Shari'a law. If you live in a democratic society, democratic law is supreme; Shari'a may govern matters similar to how Halakah works with Orthodox Jews, but the final say is democratic law, based on the constitution and bill of rights.
This is a basic logical fact. Not even to mention the indisputable fact that the Muslim Brotherhood actively works within the US Link, even trying insinuate shari'a law into American court under the rubric of "transnational law" where US courts would make decisions for Muslims plaintiffs based on not US American law, based on the constitution, but under Shari'a law, Islams constitution.
If you don't see a problem with the US court adjudicating according to Islamic thinking, where women can be exploited in divorce cases (which is what shari'a accords the man) etc; and this doesn't even touch on radical shari'a affirmation of honor killings, wife beating, killing those who insult Islam, and it's overall attitude to non-Muslims.
No one is imposing anything that you speak of, requests have been made which don't have to be met.