News French Senate Approves a Ban on Burqas

  • Thread starter Thread starter lisab
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The French Senate has voted to ban face-covering clothing, including burqas and naqabs, reflecting strong public support, with 82% of surveyed citizens in favor. The ban is viewed by some as a symbolic measure against Islam rather than a practical solution, given that less than 1% of the Muslim population in France wears such garments. Critics argue that the legislation represents government overreach and question the justification for restricting religious practices. The discussion touches on broader themes of cultural integration and the implications of government regulation on personal freedoms. Ultimately, the ban raises significant questions about the balance between security, social norms, and religious expression in Western societies.
  • #101
lisab said:
I don't think it's a bad thing at all, wanting immigrants to integrate quickly. If they aren't, perhaps there are barriers preventing it...that should be investigated. I don't know enough about the nitty-grittty details of French society to know if this is the case there, though.

Neither do I, although I think it's safe to assume there'd be more than just the burqa causing integration problems.

Here in the Washington State we have a lot of Russian and Ukrainian immigrants, often families with several generations. After just a few years the typical pattern is: the kids are completely Americanized (thanks to public schools), the parents are trying (not always easy to learn English), the grandparents...not at all. These elderly immigrants will never integrate and it's not even an issue.

That is true in the UK as well. We have a number of Indian / Pakistani families living in my local area and the pattern is exactly as described. Grandparents don't bother to integrate, parents have learned the language (better than some locals) but hold the culture, if it wasn't for their skin colour (I don't mean that in a racist way) you'd swear they were from British families.

The women in France who wear full coverage - are they elderly, I wonder?

Are they women? :biggrin: (And before anyone comments on that remark, think about it, we don't know who's under there and although I have no doubt that 99.9% of the time it is a woman, you never know... after enough beer anything could happen...especially with my friends :devil:)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
jarednjames said:
I have shown quotes from the quran which say they should cover up. This isn't a pure choice on their part, especially given how literally the book is taken, this would be taught as 'correct' from birth. So ending up believing it should be done and it is a willing choice on their part is going to happen.

Let's be honest, at some point someone said "women should cover up and not show themselves to other men". We know this because it is written in the quran (and in some countries the laws), which means someone has said it (let's ignore whether it was a damn good fiction writer or a god). So this is women being told, you should cover up.

It is an oppressive device, which someone has decided women should wear because they say so (again, leave the 'who said this' out of it for now). I have seen no evidence that at some point in time a woman went "you know what, I think I'll wear a bed sheet today" and somehow started a fashion trend which was then written into their holy book (perhaps some sort of old school fashion advert or catalogue page? :biggrin:) and has grown to what it is today.
How is this any different than any other religious doctrine that people follow literally?
 
  • #103
Proton Soup said:
everything is wrong with it. when you separate children from the teaching of their parents, you are destroying a people and its culture to replace it with your own indoctrination.

So a child should be brought up believing Creationism is a fact? That man walked with dinosaurs? And so on with all other claims made.

I have no problem with a person deciding to believe those things, but it must be a choice. You can't expect a child to make a balanced judgement.

If you must teach creationism, it should be taught as a point of view, not as a fact (as many people believe it should be in certain parts of the world). In my school we were taught science and then giving Religious Education where they taught us about the various religions. If you want to then go on and take up one of those religions it was up to you, but they did not at any point tell us these views from religions were fact.
A school isn't there to indoctrinate children, they should teach the facts based on certifiable evidence.

I don't want this a religious debate. Let's please stick to the burqa issue.
 
  • #104
Gokul43201 said:
How is this any different than any other religious doctrine that people follow literally?

It isn't, I never said it was, but it's the one in question here.
 
  • #105
Sorry but I'm new into this forum and I don't know how to post a question. Can someone teach me how? Thank you
 
  • #106
jarednjames said:
It isn't, I never said it was, but it's the one in question here.
But by implication, from your argument, you would arrive at the same conclusions about banning other practices that arise purely out of religious doctrine. There is nothing in your argument that is specific to this one practice.
 
  • #107
Gokul43201 said:
But by implication, from your argument, you would arrive at the same conclusions about banning other practices that arise purely out of religious doctrine. There is nothing in your argument that is specific to this one practice.

Yes, that is what I was implying. But mainly it applies only to things which are potentially oppressive / degrading / harmful to people.

When you said "How is this any different than any other religious doctrine that people follow literally?" I thought you meant I was singling out Islamic beliefs. I was not, I was referring to all of them.

If I misread, I apologise.
 
  • #108
Gokul43201 said:
Playing Devil's Advocate ... with a little effort, one could perhaps argue that women (in the West) wear high heels, skimpy clothes or make-up (or get boob jobs, face-lifts, etc.) because they've been brainwashed all through their lifetime into believing that you need to do these things to feel good about yourself (or make yourself attractive or whatever).

Edit: Seems I'm not alone in this thought either.
No you are not alone in this thought at all.

lisab said:
The women in France who wear full coverage - are they elderly, I wonder?
No, and that is a main reason for the issue. Remember the origin of the law is another law against wearing "hijab", or too much covering of young girls in school. Religious signs in french schools are permitted as long as they are not "ostensible", basically one must be able to hide them, they should not show too obviously. So it is ok to wear a hat, but it is not ok to wear "hijab".
 
  • #109
tpham19 said:
Sorry but I'm new into this forum and I don't know how to post a question. Can someone teach me how? Thank you
Click the big "Physics Forum" logo at the top of this page to go to the main page. Find the appropriate forum for your question, and the appropriate sub-forum under it (if needed). When you are in the right location, click the button (near the top-left) that says "New Topic", and post your question there.

Before doing any of this, read the Forum Guidelines: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380
 
  • #110
jarednjames said:
So a child should be brought up believing Creationism is a fact? That man walked with dinosaurs? And so on with all other claims made.

I have no problem with a person deciding to believe those things, but it must be a choice. You can't expect a child to make a balanced judgement.

If you must teach creationism, it should be taught as a point of view, not as a fact (as many people believe it should be in certain parts of the world). In my school we were taught science and then giving Religious Education where they taught us about the various religions. If you want to then go on and take up one of those religions it was up to you, but they did not at any point tell us these views from religions were fact.
A school isn't there to indoctrinate children, they should teach the facts based on certifiable evidence.

I don't want this a religious debate. Let's please stick to the burqa issue.

fine then, it is a cultural issue.

do you really believe that you were not indoctrinated with any cultural beliefs? and do you really think that adults are somehow incapable of thinking for themselves because of what they were taught as children?
 
  • #111
humanino said:
No you are not alone in this thought at all.

No, and that is a main reason for the issue. Remember the origin of the law is another law against wearing "hijab", or too much covering of young girls in school. Religious signs in french schools are permitted as long as they are not "ostensible", basically one must be able to hide them, they should not show too obviously. So it is ok to wear a hat, but it is not ok to wear "hijab".

A hijab can hardly be considered "too much covering." It's a simple head scarf. How the law made the leap from hijab to burqa is beyond me.
 
  • #112
Proton Soup said:
and do you really think that adults are somehow incapable of thinking for themselves because of what they were taught as children?

Yes I do, look at all the evidence for something such as evolution. And yet you still get people who refuse to believe it and would rather accept that beings just 'appeared' or were created by some all powerful being. And further still, despite no evidence for their claims at all, they will come to places (such as here) and question or even argue against evolution.

I'm not saying adults can't be brainwashed into these beliefs, but at least they are able to make the decision for themselves. Children absorb what they are told, true or not, you drill into a child that the Earth is 6000 years old and maintain that claim through to adult hood and they will believe it and it isn't easy to break that belief, even with evidence, unless the person is willing to learn.

do you really believe that you were not indoctrinated with any cultural beliefs?

I certainly was, everyone is. But I try to take a scientific stance on everything, I expect proof for claims, and based on that proof, I make a judgement. I don't take things blindly. I refuse to accept what people tell me just because they are convincing. If I am shown to be wrong in one of my beliefs, I accept I'm wrong and will amend it to the correct one. That is the difference with religion, people just take it on blind faith without question.
 
Last edited:
  • #113
Jack21222 said:
A hijab can hardly be considered "too much covering." It's a simple head scarf. How the law made the leap from hijab to burqa is beyond me.

A head scarf isn't exactly 'easy to hide' is it.
 
  • #114
jarednjames said:
Yes I do, look at all the evidence for something such as evolution. And yet you still get people who refuse to believe it and would rather accept that beings just 'appeared' or were created by some all powerful being. And further still, despite no evidence for their claims at all, they will come to places (such as here) and question or even argue against evolution.

I'm not saying adults can't be brainwashed into these beliefs, but at least they are able to make the decision for themselves. Children absorb what they are told, true or not, you drill into a child that the Earth is 6000 years old and maintain that claim through to adult hood and they will believe it and it isn't easy to break that belief, even with evidence, unless the person is willing to learn.



I certainly was, everyone is. But I try to take a scientific stance on everything, I expect proof for claims, and based on that proof, I make a judgement. I don't take things blindly. I refuse to accept what people tell me just because they are convincing. If I am shown to be wrong in one of my beliefs, I accept I'm wrong and will amend it to the correct one. That is the difference with religion, people just take it on blind faith without question.

well, since you are open to changing your mind, i would suggest to you that the culture you are standing in was built by people who tend to share those beliefs. and even if they are wrong, it is no business of yours. they will change when they are good and ready. geocentrism was once the norm, and now it rarely is. evolution will be too, eventually. it just takes time. but trying to stick your nose as firmly as you'd like between parents and children is a recipe for social disaster.
 
  • #115
Gokul43201 said:
Playing Devil's Advocate ... with a little effort, one could perhaps argue that women (in the West) wear high heels, skimpy clothes or make-up (or get boob jobs, face-lifts, etc.) because they've been brainwashed all through their lifetime into believing that you need to do these things to feel good about yourself (or make yourself attractive or whatever).

Edit: Seems I'm not alone in this thought either.
Exactly. You're reinforcing what I said. These women are taught it is right and good to hide themselves. Do you think they all just came to this decision independently? Do you think that the positive image of women in high heels, boob jobs, etc... are taught or natural?
 
  • #117
Proton Soup said:
well, since you are open to changing your mind, i would suggest to you that the culture you are standing in was built by people who tend to share those beliefs. and even if they are wrong, it is no business of yours. they will change when they are good and ready. geocentrism was once the norm, and now it rarely is. evolution will be too, eventually. it just takes time. but trying to stick your nose as firmly as you'd like between parents and children is a recipe for social disaster.
So, you're saying the people of the Mideast are evoluntionary throwbacks? That a culture that kills and maims is ok as long as there are enough others that condone it?
 
  • #118
Proton Soup said:
well, since you are open to changing your mind, i would suggest to you that the culture you are standing in was built by people who tend to share those beliefs.

You obviously haven't visited where I live. People have very strong viewpoints and are extremely reluctant to change. Trying to get people to change where I live is like going to the deep south in the US and attempting to convert people to Judaism or Islam. I constantly hear people misquote and make erroneous statements wrt the sciences and maths, but I've just given up on trying to explain things now, they are too deeply rooted in their beliefs.

[ said:
and even if they are wrong, it is no business of yours. they will change when they are good and ready

I'm sure they will, as soon as some celebrity appears on the TV with the latest must have accessory or some news report exagerates something to the extreme.

geocentrism was once the norm, and now it rarely is. evolution will be too, eventually. it just takes time. but trying to stick your nose as firmly as you'd like between parents and children is a recipe for social disaster.

I'm saying I disagree with it and find it appalling people do it, but that does not mean I want to try and stop it. I know that would be futile and to quote a friend "p****** into the wind".

I'd like to point you here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=430225 so we don't take over the thread any further.
 
  • #119
Evo said:
So, you're saying the people of the Mideast are evoluntionary throwbacks? That a culture that kills and maims is ok as long as there are enough others that condone it?

no, I'm not saying that. what i am saying is this: the problem i have with what he proposes is that it is revolutionary. (fairly strange that someone intent on indoctrination of evolution would propose an non-evolutionary means, but anyway...) revolutions of this sort tend to result in extreme violence. the soviets, for one, have already run the experiment. we have the science on that, and i don't wish to repeat it.

and as for the mideast, well, i have hopes that their culture will evolve too. in fact, i think it already has, and will continue to do so. but to be honest, you see the most atrocity in places where we are doing the most meddling.

and indeed, we are a culture that is doing quite a bit of killing and maiming of our own.
 
  • #120
Proton Soup said:
no, I'm not saying that. what i am saying is this: the problem i have with what he proposes is that it is revolutionary. (fairly strange that someone intent on indoctrination of evolution would propose an non-evolutionary means, but anyway...) revolutions of this sort tend to result in extreme violence. the soviets, for one, have already run the experiment. we have the science on that, and i don't wish to repeat it.
No, accepting the culture to which you have decided to move is not revolutionary.

and as for the mideast, well, i have hopes that their culture will evolve too. in fact, i think it already has, and will continue to do so. but to be honest, you see the most atrocity in places where we are doing the most meddling.
Again, do you understand what the topic is that we are discussing? These are people that have voluntarily moved to another country, yet are refusing to adapt. No one is meddling. Seriously, you need to get a clue about what the topic is before you post.
 
  • #121
Evo said:
No, accepting the culture to which you have decided to move is not revolutionary.

Again, do you understand what the topic is that we are discussing? These are people that have voluntarily moved to another country, yet are refusing to adapt. No one is meddling. Seriously, you need to get a clue about what the topic is before you post.

it didn't seem to be a problem when they moved there. someone changed their mind after they moved.

i understand the topic perfectly. I'm even sympathetic to the french.
 
  • #122
Proton Soup said:
it didn't seem to be a problem when they moved there. someone changed their mind after they moved.
I don't know that anyone in France ever accepted anyone there wearing a burqa in their country. I think that after many years and too much uncontrolled immigration that now public opinion is turning negative. This is similar to the influx of Mexicans into the US. The number of people and the bad economic times have brought the immigrants (mostly illegal) to the forefront of people's frustrations.

The burqa is being used, IMO, as a rallying point to gather behind. They can use the fact that it is a symbol of oppression to support whatever motives they might have.
 
  • #123
Evo said:
I don't know that anyone in France ever accepted anyone there wearing a burqa in their country. I think that after many years and too much uncontrolled immigration that now public opinion is turning negative. This is similar to the influx of Mexicans into the US. The number of people and the bad economic times have brought the immigrants (mostly illegal) to the forefront of people's frustrations.

The burqa is being used, IMO, as a rallying point to gather behind. They can use the fact that it is a symbol of oppression to support whatever motives they might have.

yes, i think there is some truth in this. but i think also there are some differences. I'm not sure the mexicans in the US are pushing so hard on our culture to change to something radically different. mexicans aren't pushing for recognition of sharia law, for instance. and so some of this in france i think is a reactionary cultural push back. and to that extent, i think they are right to stand their ground. it is one thing to be a good host and show hospitality to exiles. it is another thing entirely when they start rearranging the furniture.
 
  • #124
Proton Soup said:
yes, i think there is some truth in this. but i think also there are some differences. I'm not sure the mexicans in the US are pushing so hard on our culture to change to something radically different. mexicans aren't pushing for recognition of sharia law, for instance. and so some of this in france i think is a reactionary cultural push back. and to that extent, i think they are right to stand their ground. it is one thing to be a good host and show hospitality to exiles. it is another thing entirely when they start rearranging the furniture.

Beautifully said, couldn't agree more.
 
  • #125
This is disgraceful. I say we should egg the pope.
 
  • #126
Proton Soup said:
yes, i think there is some truth in this. but i think also there are some differences. I'm not sure the mexicans in the US are pushing so hard on our culture to change to something radically different. mexicans aren't pushing for recognition of sharia law, for instance. and so some of this in france i think is a reactionary cultural push back. and to that extent, i think they are right to stand their ground. it is one thing to be a good host and show hospitality to exiles. it is another thing entirely when they start rearranging the furniture.
Agreed with Jared, beautifully said.
 
  • #127
i can't believe we actually agree on something!
 
  • #128
Proton Soup said:
i can't believe we actually agree on something!
I know, it's frightening.
 
  • #129
Let me make sure I am hearing this right. Muslims wearing burqas is 'rearranging the furniture' of the French lifestyle?
 
  • #130
dreiter said:
Let me make sure I am hearing this right. Muslims wearing burqas is 'rearranging the furniture' of the French lifestyle?
That's a pretty good analogy to explain the discomfort.

I'm French and all of my family lives in France, and I'd say that's a nice way to put it.
 
  • #131
dreiter said:
Let me make sure I am hearing this right. Muslims wearing burqas is 'rearranging the furniture' of the French lifestyle?

not exactly. in a lot of ways, islam is like christianity. it is both evangelical and attempts to transform the culture of those it finds itself in. and so you find yourself in a clash of cultures. i think it is more than simply a few women wearing burkas. it's not as if the new immigrants are all that accepting of french culture themselves.
 
  • #132
Proton Soup said:
not exactly. in a lot of ways, islam is like christianity. it is both evangelical and attempts to transform the culture of those it finds itself in. and so you find yourself in a clash of cultures. i think it is more than simply a few women wearing burkas. it's not as if the new immigrants are all that accepting of french culture themselves.

A bit like the welcome I'd give a christian missionary... annoying buggers.
 
  • #133
Proton Soup said:
not exactly. in a lot of ways, islam is like christianity. it is both evangelical and attempts to transform the culture of those it finds itself in.
Arg, no. I could see this equivocation wreck between Islam and Christianity coming above, and here it is. Evangelicals are at most a form of Christianity, maybe a sect. Christianity as relayed via the New Testament seeks to transform the individual and his/her relations with others. It does not specify what clothes to wear, it does not demand that one kill non believers, and most importantly it does not demand a religious government (e.g. sharia law) - in fact the gospel parables warn against it.
 
  • #134
So, Christianity us multi-faceted with different sects, but Islam is homogeneous?

That's the impression I get from that post.
 
  • #135
mheslep said:
Arg, no. I could see this equivocation wreck between Islam and Christianity coming above, and here it is. Evangelicals are at most a form of Christianity, maybe a sect. Christianity as relayed via the New Testament seeks to transform the individual and his/her relations with others. It does not specify what clothes to wear, it does not demand that one kill non believers, and most importantly it does not demand a religious government (e.g. sharia law) - in fact the gospel parables warn against it.

nowhere did i say that the cultures are equivalent. if that were the case, there would not be so much strife.
 
  • #136
Proton Soup said:
nowhere did i say that the cultures are equivalent. if that were the case, there would not be so much strife.
I did not say you did. I responded to what you did say, which was:

in a lot of ways, islam is like christianity. but ...
Ok, both monotheistic, etc. But this:
it is both evangelical and attempts to transform the culture of those it finds itself in.[...]
Turns things on its head (evangelicalism is a couple hundred years old interpretation (flawed in my view) of Christianity, where as it is fundamental to the Quran and Islam and employed w/ force) and the degree of culture transformation is not comparable.
 
  • #137
Jack21222 said:
So, Christianity us multi-faceted with different sects, but Islam is homogeneous?
No.

That's the impression I get from that post.
Perhaps I didn't articulate well.
 
  • #138
mheslep said:
I did not say you did. I responded to what you did say, which was:

Ok, both monotheistic, etc. But this:
Turns things on its head (evangelicalism is a couple hundred years old interpretation (flawed in my view) of Christianity, where as it is fundamental to the Quran and Islam and employed w/ force) and the degree of culture transformation is not comparable.

i wholeheartedly disagree. christianity has been evangelical since inception (regardless of whether you think it is interpreted correctly, the application is what it is), and until recently, also "employed w/ force".

this isn't about which one you prefer.
 
  • #139
Proton Soup said:
i wholeheartedly disagree. christianity has been evangelical since inception (regardless of whether you think it is interpreted correctly, the application is what it is), and until recently, also "employed w/ force".
No, you are conflating what some have done in the name of Christianity to gather power with what it is, according to the fundamental teachings of Jesus of Nazereth. Burning witches in 16th century Salem was not fundamental to Christianity. The Crusades were not fundamental to Christianity. The difference here is that sharia law, for instance, is fundamental to Islam, not just a tenet of it.
 
  • #140
mheslep said:
... It does not specify what clothes to wear,

Where did it specify what to wear? It only tell to wear decent and modest clothing for both men and women.


...it does not demand that one kill non believers

http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm"

I just can't believe people do still argue that.

and most importantly it does not demand a religious government (e.g. sharia law) - in fact the gospel parables warn against it.

As far as I'm aware of, you won't even believe that the word itself "religious" [in Arabic of course, not the translation] isn't seen in the Quran nor the Hadeith! except for one Hadeith I guess, I'll look it up and see.


Edit:
No there's non. :biggrin:
It was one about going to the extreme [aka being religious]:

Three people came to the houses of the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to ask about how the Prophet worshipped. When they were told, it was as if they thought it was little and said, 'Where are we in relation to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who has been forgiven his past and future wrong actions?'" He said, "One of them said, 'I will pray all of every night.' Another said, 'I will fast all the time and not break the fast.' The other said, "I will withdraw from women and never marry.' The Messenger of Allah came to them and said, 'Are you the ones who said such-and-such? By Allah, I am the one among you with the most fear and awareness of Allah, but I fast and break the fast, I pray and I sleep, and I marry women. Whoever disdains my sunna is not with me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #141
drizzle said:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm"

I just can't believe people do still argue that.
That 911 conspiracy site won't do Drizzle, though the phrase "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them" is an accurate and famous verse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #142
drizzle said:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/no_murder.htm"

I just can't believe people do still argue that.
The second quote there reads to me like a call to kill idolators after some sacred period has passed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #143
mheslep said:
No, you are conflating what some have done in the name of Christianity to gather power with what it is, according to the fundamental teachings of Jesus of Nazereth. Burning witches in 16th century Salem was not fundamental to Christianity. The Crusades were not fundamental to Christianity. The difference here is that sharia law, for instance, is fundamental to Islam, not just a tenet of it.

your opinion about what it should be is not relevant. the church of rome ruled by force for centuries. it's not simply a matter of a few ergot-inspired atrocities.

and we still do this today. here in the US, we forced the Mormon church to drop polygamy. yes, we used civil authority to do it, but that law is largely derived from mainstream christian values. islam would also allow polygamy, but because of our largely christian-based culture, they will not be able to practice that in america. we don't call it something like "sharia", and we claim a separation of church and state, but even though the law is officially secular, it is based on our cultural values that are originally not secular.
 
  • #144
Proton Soup said:
your opinion about what it should be is not relevant. the church of rome ruled by force for centuries. it's not simply a matter of a few ergot-inspired atrocities.
Please stop attributing to me that which I did not say. It did not what say Christianity 'should be'. I laid out a bit of what it is, according to the original precepts of the New Testament. Humanity being what it is, the Roman Catholic church distorted Christianity for its own purposes for centuries, but because of the fundamentals, the Protestant Reformation began a cure for many of those ills. Islam has not undergone any such reformation to my knowledge, certainly not any major one.

and we still do this today. here in the US, we forced the Mormon church to drop polygamy. yes, we used civil authority to do it, but that law is largely derived from mainstream christian values. islam would also allow polygamy, but because of our largely christian-based culture, they will not be able to practice that in america. we don't call it something like "sharia", and we claim a separation of church and state, but even though the law is officially secular, it is based on our cultural values that are originally not secular.
Here's the equivocation again to which I was originally referring. Yes one could argue that Christianity imposes a culture to some degree, but to find sharia law similar, which demands religious tenets be implemented throughout civil code, is to completely misunderstand sharia.
 
  • #145
mheslep said:
That 911 conspiracy site won't do Drizzle, though the phrase "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them" is an accurate and famous verse.

For one, I’m not entitled to defend Islam from charges that’s being accused with. [and that’s why most Muslims don’t speak, IMO, no one wants to be responsible for the views that would’ve build up against the religion based on her/his opinion, s/he’ll be questioned [by God] of whatever others might’ve misled the truth. Aside from that, Islam speaks for itself, one just needs to read]
But for this very verse, here’s the reason behind it:
It is easy to cut and paste without reading the whole surah to understand. A group of pagans made an agreement with the Muslims that they would be allowed to do Hajj. The Muslims did as the agreement asked but the Pagans repeatedly denyed them the right to do Hajj and blocked them even though they had furfilled there part of the bargan. So they were given a warning over a period of of time and then if they did not allow them to do Hajj than they were given permission to fight the pagens who had violated the agreement. But were clearly told not to harm those who had not violated the agreements. In Islam at the time Muslims were forbidden to fight without permission. This was permission to go to war.

A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances
Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.
And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous. .


Two, Islam doesn’t contradict itself:
… if anyone slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.
Quran 5:32

Islam considers all life forms as sacred, and there are many MANY verses that show that clearly.

So please move on and stay on topic.
 
  • #146
mheslep said:
Please stop attributing to me that which I did not say. It did not what say Christianity 'should be'. I laid out a bit of what it is, according to the original precepts of the New Testament. Humanity being what it is, the Roman Catholic church distorted Christianity for its own purposes for centuries, but because of the fundamentals, the Protestant Reformation began a cure for many of those ills. Islam has not undergone any such reformation to my knowledge, certainly not any major one.

Here's the equivocation again to which I was originally referring. Yes one could argue that Christianity imposes a culture to some degree, but to find sharia law similar, which demands religious tenets be implemented throughout civil code, is to completely misunderstand sharia.

well... i think you're making a religious argument here that perhaps islam is not ever capable of integrating into westernized democracies, so I'm just going to withdraw from the discussion.
 
  • #147
Proton Soup said:
well... i think you're making a religious argument here that perhaps islam is not ever capable of integrating into westernized democracies, so I'm just going to withdraw from the discussion.
If that was his point then I would suggest he read up on Turkey and all the Islamic peoples that moved to the west and became citizens inside those nations.
 
  • #148
Dennis_Murphy said:
If that was his point then I would suggest he read up on Turkey and all the Islamic peoples that moved to the west and became citizens inside those nations.

That doesn't mean they integrated with the general population.

(I'm not saying they did or didn't but the fact they migrated does not mean they integrated.)
 
  • #149
jarednjames said:
That doesn't mean they integrated with the general population.

(I'm not saying they did or didn't but the fact they migrated does not mean they integrated.)
No it doesn't, but that's why I said to 'read about' them. When you read about them you may well be able to find out if they integrated, how well they integrated, or if they did not.
 
  • #150
Dennis_Murphy said:
No it doesn't, but that's why I said to 'read about' them. When you read about them you may well be able to find out if they integrated, how well they integrated, or if they did not.

I read your initial quote as "he's wrong, they can and do integrate, he should read about them before making such claims".

If that is not how it was meant then either I'm wrong and apologise or it was poorly worded.
 

Similar threads

News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
Replies
10
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top