France Orders Mosque Closed after 'Unacceptable' Preaching

There is no such thing as Palestine. The name Philistia was given to the land area by the Romans in order to insult Jews.
There has never been a palestinian kingdom.
There has never been a palestinian king.
There has never been a palestinian currency.

Those are cold, hard facts.

In 1966, 1967 and 1968, Jordan dropped off over 800,000 Jordanians in Israel and called them "palestinians".

It's one of the bigger lies in all of history.

So, with all due respect, get your ****ing facts straight.

 

You first, I asked you a simple and direct question.


But maybe elaborate on your other claim that Muslims are oppressed in their own nations.

 

The laws in SA are supposed to be divinely guided as they're based on the quran and the sunnah. The quran is the word of god, the sunnah is mostly the actions and words of Muhammad that is chosen by god as an example, and someone who should be obeyed. So yes, when you base your laws on the quran and the sunnah, they're "divinely guided".

That's completely off topic, excepted about the topic of abortion. The fact that A is wrong, and B is wrong also doesn't mean that A is any less wrong.
On a practical manner, there is a group of people who want to kill people because of how they talk of religion or what religion they choose, and they want laws to enforce those killing.
The matter of an unfair judicial system is important indeed, but not the topic there, and I would stay on that position : any religion or religious movement that command to kill some people because of blasphemy or apostasy is to my heart an abomination, feeling I hope it's widely shared.

 

I couldn't care less what other countries are doing. It's like your mother always asked you when you said "BUT MOOOOMMMM!!! Everybody is doing it!"... "If all your friends were jumping off a bridge, would you do that too?"

As far as I am aware, the only thing the US uses "hate speech" for is to enhance sentences based on the perp's motivation. I find myself against that, because if you kill someone, no matter what your reason is, they're still dead, and those kinds of charges should all get the harshest of sentences... for that particular crime I only see three viable options. 25 to life. Life without parole. Or the death sentence. Generally speaking, the harsher, the better, no matter why they did the crime.

 

Perhaps you could take this up with the British government who held the Palestinian mandate until after WW2 in which it promised to give up in the famous letter by Lord Balfour to Lionel Walter Rothschild, figurehead of the UK Jewish community, on November 2, 1917 in which he promised to establish a Jewish state IN PALESTINE and which later gave impetus to the nakba in 1948.
It became part of the legal British Mandate for Palestine after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
With all due respect.

 

I am not playing this game.
If you have nothing to add in reply to the points I made in my last explanatory post, then there is nothing more to say.
Muslims are not going to achieve the great replacement fears you have, nor replace any western law with Sharia law. Anymore than Jews, in reality far more influential if not numerous than Muslims, will flood the globe and impose Beth Din laws on us all.

I repeat...these kinds of fearmongerings are and always have been the facile tools of those who support purity of race and ethnic cleansing.

 

Just say you refuse to answer. And if you're going to attempt to call me a racist, just come right out with it.

You won't answer my question but you demand I address your points, even as you ignore mine.

That's not how it works dear.

 

I repeat, I answered you, even though it had nothing to do with my explanation which you quoted. Answers do not have to be "in your face". They can be indicated within an explanation of the situation. I told you I answered your question when I criticised your position. I also note th at having once again attempted to explain my response to you five minutes ago you prefer to play pass the parcel. I see no progress in such cul de sacs.
I have had enough of this game. It is past history, dead in the water and I have moved on. Your attempts at diversion is timed out and my point remains. I once again reply to your original issue. Muslims are not going to overrun the world and impose Sharia law. You aren't specifically a racist...just as misguided as all the other misguided fools who believed conspiracy theories in order to satisfy their prejudices.

 

Leftist the world over tend to be the same.

Much like playing chess with a pigeon....

I asked what the Koran says about colonizing new lands...you did not answer, unless you call childish insults an answer.

 

And Jesus never encouraged or applauded Paul or the other evangelists who went forth and colonised new lands? Wrote glowing reports of the success of people like St. Patrick who was one of those who imposed Christianity wherever they went? Missionaries are even today "converting" the native population in for example Africa.
I have answered this before. Christians have perhaps the greatest history of going forth and converting others. Years of the crusades incorporated it. South American rulers were held hostage and killed as leverage to guide their population to convert.

Muslims do not do this since their faith was localised over 100 years ago. On the contrary they have had to fight oil hungry Christians off their lands, had to stop them carving up hgteir territories when Chrisians drew lines in a map, fought th eir

 

And Jesus never encouraged or applauded Paul or the other evangelists who went forth and colonised new lands? Wrote glowing reports of the success of chgange the like St. Patrick who was one of those who imposed Christianity wherever they went? Missionaries are even today "converting" the native population in for example Africa.
I have answered this before. Christians have perhaps the greatest history of going forth and converting others. Years of the crusades incorporated it. South American rulers were held hostage and killed as leverage to guide their population to convert.
Christians killed, burned and tortured event heir own kind in attempts to convert from one kind to another. Homes were burned and royal dynasties changed in order to change the beliefs of even their own kind.

Muslims do not do this since their faith was localised over 100 years ago. On the contrary they have had to fight oil hungry Christians off their lands, had to stop them carving up their territories when Christians drew lines in a map, fought their wars on Muslim soil and generally considered Muslims to be inferior in terms of respect in their own lands.

Muslims are not going to erase 2000 years of Christian history and culture anymore than Jews or Hindus will, by simply "being there".
Now do I have to repeat myself again or are you going to try to divert the subject of the conversation by a "I said you said" load of irrelevancies?

 

I don't have to take it up with anybody.

 

And right off the top with some whutaboutism....

One key difference these aspects of Christianity you are discussing have not been practiced for centuries. The crusades ended long ago. Christians do not still live as though it were still Old testament times.

They do not force non-believers and Christian held lands to pay taxes to their religious leaders.

They do not throw homosexuals off of rooftops or fly airplanes into buildings.

 

However what they did, they did in the name of their faith.
What nations do today in the name of faith is none of my business.
However you are still sidestepping the point...Muslims are not going to take over the world, or even your island.
BTW the Christian west may not throw homosexuals off rooftops because they can chemically castrate them...Alan Turing, a mere 60 years ago, a brilliant man who committed suicide because of it. The same Christians opened a vicious war on innocent countries only a few yeas ago thinking they were the messiahs of some set of dominoed holy multinational revolution which the western Christian ideology will prevail and which "of course" the people of those countries were desperate to become just like "us".
Now look at the mess.
Western Christians are not much more "civilised" than anyone else. The difference is that we have free press which exposes such things. Well at least many sides of the same story are made public...some more honestly than others.
What they wanted was to be THEMSELVES in their own opinions and that can be achieved outside their own country free from POLITICAL oppression when their side lost in the war we started. That is why they left. Not to evangelise the world towards Islam.

 

could be, other Abrahamic middle eastern religions did the whole convert or kill nonsense, ask the American Indians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chronicles+15:13&version=KJV

"2 Chronicles 15:13

King James Version (KJV)

13That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

 

You say this,... when you look up Saudi Arabia,... it's officially a Kingdom, and an absolute monarchy to be exact. The king got like thousands of royal family members around. Some 100's of them family members with the king control the entire country. And because of that, it's a monarchy. Those people are not the clergy. They do not pretend to be some kind of prophet, and so would deny they are divinely guided as if they are hearing Gods voice or something. That makes it that the government is not divinely GUIDED at all. They rule by the sake of what they see best, being religiously RESTRICTED.

There is little difference between racial and religious oppression. When a person with an ethnic black names sends it's resume, their chances for an interview are significant lower. You might as well be a Christian in Jordan wanting a job.

 

Yes there is. Palestine became a recognized nation in 2012.

Absolutely not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine#Historical_references

Those lands have -as far as anybody knows- always had a name that eventually morphed from Peleset to Palestine.
You're just puking a zionistic rant to legitimize the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians out of Israel since they have no historic rights to those lands,
while you lot can not stand the world Palestina predates the oldest written reference to "Israel".

 

Palestine is now a quasi-member of the UN with observer status.
The reason it is not a full member is that Israel refuses to approve it because if Palestine is a full member it will have defined borders and Israel would be breaking international law when it breaches those borders in order to nibble away at what God told them was theirs in some book over 2000 years ago. Or some such justification.
As a member Palestine would also be granted the right to have a seaport, an airport and hefty grants to repair infrastructure. I would also hope the UN would impose a DMZ to stop Israel freely crossing the border to build settlements.
Unfortunately the USA sits on the Security Council.

 

There is not anything quasi about it. Palestine is a nation and so a member of the UN, recognized through vote by the world and gotten it by a massive majority. And the reason why they can't get a vote at the table of the UN, is ONLY because the US would use it's veto power against that decision,... where the US did not have a veto power to stop Palestine to become a member. That's why they can't promote beyond the member observer status,... but it's still a country and a member. And it is so, because the US refuse to support that Palestine is an equal partner vs Israel and must be submissive. It's also the US who got about a 10% stake in the West Bank, since that's the amount of American Jews who thieved the land of the Arabs. THAT'S behind it.

And there already is a consensus about what is Israel. And that is the green line. Everything beyond it is not Israel, and is occupied.

While a member of the UN still can drag Israel to the courts of Justice over it, and has. As of such Palestine entered a warcrime complaint against Israel last year. Such things simply take a lot of time.

 

How would you call a country where the constitution is based on a religious book that fancy itself as the word of an all-knowing god ? Where laws has to been made in relation of what this god is supposed to decree ?
They don't pretend to be prophet, and if they don't pretend to hear directly the voice of god, they still pretend to rule in agreement in the word of god incarnated in the shape of a book, the qur'an.
Don't call it a theocracy itself, but it remain states where religion with who you can marry, when you can eat (eating in a public manner can be a crime during ramandan in some muslim countries), what religion you are allowed to have or not, what you're allowed to say or not about especially on religious topics. You won't call that a theocracy, fine. I don't have any specific love about semantics, but the practical reality of that remain horrific, and a hell to live in.

There is also a difference between having the possibility to be executed for a supposed blasphemy or choosing a religion that isn't allowed by the state and having a trouble to get a job, even if yet the second remain very problematic. But again, proving that racial discrimination is appaling won't prove that having death penalty for blasphemers and apostates is any less a horrific practice and insult to human dignity.

 

It's ends up to be semantics when you do not respond how the SA government is formed and how they rule the country. They simply inherit the power, and govern the way they want but must remain within their religious laws. So that's not ruling divinely / divinely guided ... which means rule as if or like a god. They are not ruling like that. The government is submissive / restricted and not rule divinely at all. That's totally different with Iran where the clergy determine who may be fit to be elected into office. That is the game changer.

You're going way to much into the details about mariage and eating. The US also got their Christian themes like an eye for an eye with the death penalty, and their idea's to make abortions illegal again as much as possible. It's totally not relevant to how the country is ruled.

Good example.
Germany, Poland, Italy and Spain... where religion is no joke, got it's blasphemy laws in place.
It doesn't mean jack for what kind of government they have.

You can't even be openly pro LGBT in Russia, because it hurts the religious feels.
Doesn't turn Putin into a person who rules divinely one bit.

 

You call that details, I see it as the essential points, how religion is used on a concrete manner to controle people life. It's an illusion to hope that religion has no impact on politics, as religion impact in a major way the way we conceive ethics, but again there is a world between the concrete way your life is controlled in most western countries and the way it's done in muslim countries.
I respect the sovereignty of those countries, and the right to rule according to their custom, but it's clearly the kind of customs I don't want to be coerced with.

I'm against all blasphemy laws, and extremely skeptical about hate laws (but I am in favor of laws banning incitation toward violence, lies, for instance someone calling people of a specific race/religion should be legally responsible for people who are of that ethnic group/religion and not a thief). And I still disagree, as far as I know those governments rules blasphemy with fines (maybe prison for poland), it's still arguable, but there is a world between having to pay a 500 euros because you insulted god, and being executed with a blasphemy law for being a criticfull of Islam.

 

It's not colonization when it's your own homeland.

That will not be a problem if those borders are defined as being the Gaza Strip alone.

However, the policy of the current Israeli PM is that the Palestinians are never to have a state of any kind. He wants to hand the Gaza Strip over to Egypt instead.

That the West Bank is Israel's ancient homeland is an archaeological and historical fact.

Israel's ongoing blockade would overrule that right.

Hardly unfortunate. We veto all the hate and anti-Semitism there.

 

Are you sure you think Bibi is wanting to turn over all those Israeli settlements to Egypt?? He gets much of his political suport from there.

 

You're still never minding the entire thing of how the people get the power to govern, and if or if they are not divinely guided.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/monarchy
monarchy, political system based upon the undivided sovereignty or rule of a single person. The term applies to states in which supreme authority is vested in the monarch, an individual ruler who functions as the head of state and who achieves his or her position through heredity. Most monarchies allow only male succession, usually from father to son.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monarchy
undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person
Saudi Arabia is governed by a monarchy.
a government having a hereditary chief of state with life tenure and powers varying from nominal to absolute

jaw dropping, no?

of course there is a world of hurt of difference. But in both cases it's not allowed. While it doesn't make Poland into some country ruled by religion. Your idea to look at the law, and judge how the country is governed is simply not correct.