Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: swarthyguy
The problem with what Dr. Siraj Islam Mufti has to say here is that he has only part of an argument. Besides ignoring the parts of Islam which advocate violence and discrimination against non-Muslims, his sweeping indictment of secularization is misdirected, since he can show no example of a Muslim society with a remotely comparable standard of living to that of the West which doesn't show most, if not all, of the same characteristics he arbitrarily ascribes to 'secularism'.

However, there may be a middle course satisfactory to most. Islam is probably unique in being the only major religion which has numerous and repeated passages in the Quran and other holy texts which specifically enjoin Muslims to perpetrate acts of violence and discrimination against non-Muslims. If laws (in the US and elsewhere) were passed which defined any such passages (in whatever religion's books) as being not religious or divinely inspired teachings by nature of their inherent injustice to others, only versions of the Quran and other religious texts with those passages expunged could be allowed to be used for any religious or teaching purpose, and the use of texts which include the inciteful passages could result in criminal prosecution and closing of mosques and schools which refuse to comply with the law.

The really advantageous part of this is that it would leave judeo/christian teachings untouched for the most part. With this approach, we could keep the best of Islam and reject the worst of it. It would not amount to censorship, since unexpurgated Islamic texts could be accessed in libraries, for instance. It would just be illegal to use such texts for religious purposes which include passages which incite unlawful or discriminatory actions. And if Muslims don't like it, they can suck sand, IMO.

12 posted on 04/15/2002 6:59:49 PM PDT by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Post Toasties
it's not as if most people have considered the KJV of the Bible as the only useable version, and versions which have references to an asexual god are being used. Given this, I see no reason not to bar, by law, the use of socially destructive and discriminatory passages from the Quran and other Islamic texts for 'religious' purposes, since they are arguably already in violation of the laws relating to literature which advocates violence and insurrection.
13 posted on 04/15/2002 7:07:30 PM PDT by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Post Toasties
If laws (in the US and elsewhere) were passed which defined any such passages (in whatever religion's books) as being not religious or divinely inspired teachings by nature of their inherent injustice to others, only versions of the Quran and other religious texts with those passages expunged could be allowed to be used for any religious or teaching purpose, and the use of texts which include the inciteful passages could result in criminal prosecution and closing of mosques and schools which refuse to comply with the law.

Incitement to violence, perhaps ?

I'm glad someone has thought of a way to address this. I've been torn between the idea of freedom of religion and the sense that Islam doesn' t seem to have a place in a democratic, freedom -loving society such ours. I have been truly concerned about the influx of Muslims to this country because of the totalitarian worldview which this religion seems to espouse. As many westerners who have lived in Dar es Sallam (the land of Islam) have said, as long as muslims are in the minority, they will present the "Islam is peace" face to the world. But, because of the totalitarian spirit of their worldview,i.e., that it encompasses everything, I have a difficult time seeing how it could be the majority religion of a society and not be a constraint on the freedom of non-believers at minimum.

Your suggestion about expunging parts of their scriptures or teachings, while extreme, call to mind the requirements imposed on settlers of Utah, who, when they wanted to join the Union as a state, were requred to prohibit polygamy as a legal right. I don't know if it was expunged within the LDS teachings, but it is not permissable (legally) in Utah.

All I know is, I do not want the kind of Muslim influence here (heavily financed and politically oriented to a foreign end) as is seen in Europe, especially with imams who plead innocence as to the "political" nature of their mosque.

29 posted on 04/15/2002 10:51:35 PM PDT by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson