Misconceptions about Islam

[Muslimwoman]

Mohammed, who never prophised about anything "ANYTHING",

There are over 160 prophesies by Prophet Mohamed (pbuh) .. here's a couple of them:

The Romans have been defeated in a land close by, but they, after their defeat, will be victorious, within nine years. God’s is the command in the former case and in the latter, and on that day believers will rejoice, with the help of God. He helps to victory whom He wills. He is the All-Mighty, the All-Compassionate. (al-Rum, 30.1-5)

...


Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmad ibn Hanbal record:

During the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque in Madina, God’s Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, told ‘Ammar: “What a pity O ‘Ammar, a rebellious group will kill you.”3

‘Ammar was killed in the Battle of Siffin by the supporters of Mu‘awiya, who rebelled against Caliph ‘Ali.

..

The Prophet declared:

This affair began with Prophethood and as a mercy; then it will be mercy and Caliphate; afterwards it will change into a cruel monarchy, and finally into an iniquity and tyranny. He also prophesied: Surely, the Caliphate after me will last thirty years; afterwards it will a cruel monarchy.

 

[Muslimwoman]

thank you for your reply

I'm reading a history of the world ( a very big book!) and I'm afraid it's very depressing reading about all the killing done by followers of the Abrahamic religions, all supposedly carried out in the name of the same God.

s.

I can understand why it depresses you but it's just the nature of humans. If we read the history of non-religious war (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc) it is as bad if not worse. Man will kill man and if one banner doesn't get them fighting then anothe will ... it's all about power and money

 

[iBrian]

thank you for your reply

I'm reading a history of the world ( a very big book!) and I'm afraid it's very depressing reading about all the killing done by followers of the Abrahamic religions, all supposedly carried out in the name of the same God.

s.

The world wasn't exactly peaceful before Christianity.

War often involves a dispute other resources, not least land, trade, etc (we want It; no, It's ours) - how it is justified is always cultural. So naturally the focus of that culture (God, gods, political idealism) will be used in the language of conquest.

Alas, it appears to be part of human nature, something we've carried on from ape instincts on territory - however, if you look around now, in much of the world, the threat of any town being imminently looted and sacked seems far less frequent.

I would even go as far as to suggest that the world is a more peaceful place now than at any other time in recorded human history.

2c.

 

[Snoopy]

I can understand why it depresses you but it's just the nature of humans. If we read the history of non-religious war (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc) it is as bad if not worse. Man will kill man and if one banner doesn't get them fighting then anothe will ... it's all about power and money

Yes I agree tis the nature of humans, and any one banner will do. Money, power, resources, ideology, but I do believe religion is also in the mix as an often-times big banner.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

The world wasn't exactly peaceful before Christianity.

Yes, tis in our nature.

War often involves a dispute other resources, not least land, trade, etc (we want It; no, It's ours)

I agree.

- how it is justified is always cultural. So naturally the focus of that culture (God, gods, political idealism) will be used in the language of conquest.

Always? Religion can be a primary driver though, up front. Religious belief as a REASON to go to war. It's been the case on innumerable occasions...

Alas, it appears to be part of human nature, something we've carried on from ape instincts on territory

Agreed.

- however, if you look around now, in much of the world, the threat of any town being imminently looted and sacked seems far less frequent.

...but replaced with more large scale and longer lasting threats...

I would even go as far as to suggest that the world is a more peaceful place now than at any other time in recorded human history.

I gotta move to that Scottish island (?) you're on!

1p.

s.

 

[Amergin]

Yes I agree tis the nature of humans, and any one banner will do. Money, power, resources, ideology, but I do believe religion is also in the mix as an often-times big banner.

s.

I agree that humans have been at war with other humans for at least 40,000 years. We see chimp groups war against other Chimp groups. Therefore, our likely common ancestor Sahelanthropus 7 million years ago probably fought against other Sahelanthropus‘. I say so because both of Sahel's descendants, Chimps and humans wage war.

War is likely due to greed for land rights, hunting rights, natural resources like water, to acquire women, to acquire slaves, and to steal food and other items from a rival tribe. The war leader (Chimp or Human) also wants the power of victory to appease his grandiosity and submission of his own people.

Most wars involve an aggressor and a defender. Tribes attacked will fight back. Some tribes will attack another tribe in a pre-emptive strike.

Religion is nearly always a factor in modern human wars. I doubt that people start wars for religious fervour only. There must always be some tangible goal that fuels the war. The Role of Religion is justification of wars to those who may question their morality. A warlord feels justified if he claims that God told him to attack the infidels or heretics to bring God's blessing. His personal gift from God is the wealth, food, live stock, young girls, and possibly slaves of captured "evil infidels".

We are all familiar with the book of Deuteronomy. God supposedly orders Israelites to attack the Amalikites, Bashonites, Heshbonites, and Canaanites. God orders and/or allows Hebrew warriors to attack weak Canaanite cities. The recent withdrawal of Egyptian Army garrisons back to Egypt left its Canaanite Protectorate cities defenceless. They lacked trained soldiers. City dwellers were no match for battle hardened armed desert barbaric raiders.

With God's will on their side, the Israelites were blameless for killing men, women, children, and babies while taking virgin girls for sex slaves (concubines). Moses and Joshua were merely doing the will of their God. The Canaanite Cities had no army except inexperienced spontaneous militias. The Canaanite God lost these wars for lack of a brutal army.

Probably 90% or more European, North African, Middle Eastern, Anatolian, and Central Asian wars of the past 3000 years used religions as banners, justifications, and absolution for war crimes. Religion did possibly count more for the individual soldiers. Soldiers without wealth or power might fight for God to insure entry to Heaven, and guaranteed paradise if killed in battle. Soldiers motivated by salvation in Paradise if killed in battle will fight recklessly and effectively.

BTW, World War II, was a war partially motivated by religion. Nazi Germany fought against the Soviet Union because the Christian Hitler hated the "Godless Bolsheviks." Christianity motivated western allies such as the UK and USA in fighting Hitler's Nordic blended Christianity, and Mussolini's pact with the Pope making Catholicism official. One might argue that Communism was a religion in every way except an invisible god. The USSR had giant pictures of Lenin and Stalin that were somewhat worshiped. Lenin's embalmed body was in Red Square for millions of people to parade by in a reverence usually given to gods.

Radical Muslims have stated goals of reuniting all current Islamic Countries into a Caliphate. They have a stated goal of conquering Europe and imposing Islam. After the conquest of Eurasia and Africa, they talk about a future goal of conquest of the America's. I do not take the latter seriously. However, they could conquer Europe by massive immigration that may drown the native people in Muslim majorities. Can one imagine the dreadful condition of a Paris or London under Sharia Law?

We might deserve it. We, Europeans, did exactly that in the Americas to the "Pagan" Native Americans.

Amergin

 

[Muslimwoman]

Yes I agree tis the nature of humans, and any one banner will do. Money, power, resources, ideology, but I do believe religion is also in the mix as an often-times big banner.

Oh without any doubt Snoopy. Some mullah decides he wants to expand his power or take a bit of land off his enemy .. if he stands in the square and says fight and die for me so I can get richer, he is unlikely to get many takers ... change that to fight and die for God, defeat Gods enemies and go to heaven, do not pass go and collect 72 virgins on your way into heaven ... hey presto an army appears and doesn't want paid.

We saw the same tactic used in invading Iraq (minus the promise of virgins) and the threats against Iran .. we must protect ourselves from our enemy. Nazi Germany and the Jews .... basically in order to create a mob you have to have a common enemy, what greater common enemy than the "enemy of God"??!! Ho hum.

Radical Muslims have stated goals of reuniting all current Islamic Countries into a Caliphate. They have a stated goal of conquering Europe and imposing Islam. After the conquest of Eurasia and Africa, they talk about a future goal of conquest of the America's.

Can you tell me who these radical groups are please and which of the groups has any potential ability to take over the world?

As for taking over through immigration you might like to read this:

Do Muslims Seek to Dominate the West? And Could They Do It? [incl. Tariq Ramadan]: While there is plenty of fear out there, actual numbers tell a different tale - Campus Watch

It goes like this: The population of Europe will be 40-per-cent Muslim by 2020.


Due to high immigration and birthrates, the forewarning declares, Muslims from the Middle East and Africa will soon dominate much, if not all, of European politics, education and the courts.


Princeton University professor Charles Westoff and Max Planck Institute researcher Tomas Frejka start with a simple reality check: Only about four per cent of Europe's population is now "Muslim."


The demographers add that four out of five of those European "Muslims" are not religiously observant.


They go on to say it's possible that the "Muslim" percentage of Europe's population could rise to six per cent by 2020. If current immigration and birth rates remain the same, Westoff and Frejka say the percentage of Muslims in Europe could rise to 10 per cent -- a century from now.
Then again, the demographers say, even these scenarios are unlikely. Europe's Muslim population probably won't rise to one out of 10, ever. That's because "Muslim" women don't have more babies than other women under the same circumstances.


Even though women from Muslim-majority countries in Africa and Asia have in the past had more children on average than European and North American women, their fertility rate drops dramatically after they move to industrialized countries.


The work of Westoff and Frejka, plus the related research of a Canadian named Randy McDonald, makes the second question almost entirely theoretical. But it's still interesting.


Having just watched 80+ million Muslims fight for their human rights and freedom perhaps you should consider how many Muslim radicals (of the 1.5 billion), who do of course exist, would be required to take over Europe and impose Sharia law and then to take over the world ... sorry but it's just scaremongering.

 

[Quahom1]

There are over 160 prophesies by Prophet Mohamed (pbuh) .. here's a couple of them:

The Romans have been defeated in a land close by, but they, after their defeat, will be victorious, within nine years. God’s is the command in the former case and in the latter, and on that day believers will rejoice, with the help of God. He helps to victory whom He wills. He is the All-Mighty, the All-Compassionate. (al-Rum, 30.1-5)

...


Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmad ibn Hanbal record:

During the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque in Madina, God’s Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, told ‘Ammar: “What a pity O ‘Ammar, a rebellious group will kill you.”3

‘Ammar was killed in the Battle of Siffin by the supporters of Mu‘awiya, who rebelled against Caliph ‘Ali.

..

The Prophet declared:

This affair began with Prophethood and as a mercy; then it will be mercy and Caliphate; afterwards it will change into a cruel monarchy, and finally into an iniquity and tyranny. He also prophesied: Surely, the Caliphate after me will last thirty years; afterwards it will a cruel monarchy.

I am looking up the timeline for Hanbal, however, the "Roman" prophecy is none of the sort. Rome fell almost two hundred years before. What was stated was a fact of history.

 

[arthra]

I am looking up the timeline for Hanbal, however, the "Roman" prophecy is none of the sort. Rome fell almost two hundred years before. What was stated was a fact of history.

I think what the "prophecy" referred to was the war between the Byzantines and Sassanid Empire.. The Muslims were pro-Christian and still called the Byzantine Empire "Rum".

Byzantine?Sassanid Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[farhan]

I am looking up the timeline for Hanbal, however, the "Roman" prophecy is none of the sort. Rome fell almost two hundred years before. What was stated was a fact of history.

Rome (RUM in arabic) was used for both Roman and Byzantine empires. Infact the word rum was also used for most of the anatolian territories ruled by Byzantine Empire. Which gives us the name Jalaluddin Rumi, who lived most of his life in Konya not Rome, and was called Rumi for this reason.

Anyways there are hundreds of prophecies related to Muhammad. There is one hadith where he says that Constantinople will be conquered before Rome (Romiyya in arabic) by Muslims. Iran will be conquered. Barefoot arab shepherds will compete each other in making tall buildings (which is now happening in Dubai). Anitchrist will be on the western side of Jordan River (Now West Bank, slowly becoming Israel) and Jesus on eastern side. There are many prophecies about Khurasani (Afghanistan) people helping Jesus etc, and many more.

 

[farhan]

Radical Muslims have stated goals of reuniting all current Islamic Countries into a Caliphate. They have a stated goal of conquering Europe and imposing Islam.

I havent found anybody who wants to conquer Europe (Other than a bearded Pakistani fool who was shouting Sharia in London, while his own country continues to be ruled by modified Anglo-Saxon law). This is just a clever scaremongering tactic of your leaders. The only thing muslims do want from the west is to get the feck out of their territories. Thats the stated goal of Hamas, Hizbullah, Ikhwan, Taliban........ everybody.

Reuniting their lands is people's right, who the hell are you to deny them that?

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

I havent found anybody who wants to conquer Europe (Other than a bearded Pakistani fool who was shouting Sharia in London, while his own country continues to be ruled by modified Anglo-Saxon law). This is just a clever scaremongering tactic of your leaders. The only thing muslims do want from the west is to get the feck out of their territories. Thats the stated goal of Hamas, Hizbullah, Ikhwan, Taliban........ everybody.

Reuniting their lands is people's right, who the hell are you to deny them that?

will muslim get the fek out of the west then ?

also would you like to see india and pakistan re-united ?

 

[farhan]

will muslim get the fek out of the west then ?

I am sure if west get out of muslim lands (which is impossible to happen), then after some time, these territories will have enough wealth that nobody would need to migrate to the west. But what exactly are you going to do with native white converts? AFAIK, England has got a huge number of them. Cat Stevens is an example, are you gonna kick them too?

Secondly, Muslims are in the west because you dont have enough young men. So where are you gonna get them.... China? You need them as much as they need you. They need jobs, you need work force.

also would you like to see india and pakistan re-united ?

Pakistan and India separated because Hindus weren't willing to give Muslims their rights in a Hindu majority country. That hasn't changed even today. For example very famous Muslims (like Shabana Azmy) dont get apartments in Mumbai just because they are Muslim. There has been a huge Sachar report about all that. I guess for the same reason Bangladesh didnt become a part of India. So I don't see any reunification needed or happening.

 

[bananabrain]

We are all familiar with the book of Deuteronomy. God supposedly orders Israelites to attack the Amalikites, Bashonites, Heshbonites, and Canaanites. God orders and/or allows Hebrew warriors to attack weak Canaanite cities. The recent withdrawal of Egyptian Army garrisons back to Egypt left its Canaanite Protectorate cities defenceless. They lacked trained soldiers. City dwellers were no match for battle hardened armed desert barbaric raiders.

i can't work out here if you're taking the claims of the Torah at face value or if you're taking a historical critical perspective. the Torah itself (if you remember the episode of the 12 spies) talks about how strong the canaanite cities, armies and people were and how the jews felt like "grasshoppers" compared to them, which was one of the reason we ended up wandering around the wilderness for 40 years instead. the Torah does not mention egyptian army garrisons and, indeed, in its narrative, the egyptian army would just have been handed a pretty major pasting at the red sea crossing, not to mention the chaos going on back home. but if you're taking a historical critical perspective, you will probably conclude that there's no evidence any of this ever happened, so how can you then conclude that:

Israelites were blameless for killing men, women, children, and babies while taking virgin girls for sex slaves (concubines). Moses and Joshua were merely doing the will of their God.

how can the Torah be criticised for all this if it didn't really happen? and, similarly, if the following is true:

The Canaanite Cities had no army except inexperienced spontaneous militias. The Canaanite God lost these wars for lack of a brutal army.

what is your evidence that the *israelite* "army" was anything more than a "spontaneous militia"? you will struggle to find archaeological support for this point of view. this whole perspective seems very confused, it's like you're picking the things that make the israelites look bad from the Torah and ignoring the archaeological stuff, then pointing out historical evidence about the canaanites to support your point and ignoring the textual claims.

Nazi Germany fought against the Soviet Union because the Christian Hitler hated the "Godless Bolsheviks."

hitler was not a christian. he was brought up a catholic, but his idol was the aryan race and the german nation; the state religion of nazism was nazism. communism was also the state religion of the soviet union - so, yes, a war of religion, but not one of abrahamic religion - one of romantic religion (nazism) against empirical religion (marxism-leninism-stalinism).

Having just watched 80+ million Muslims fight for their human rights and freedom perhaps you should consider how many Muslim radicals (of the 1.5 billion), who do of course exist, would be required to take over Europe and impose Sharia law and then to take over the world ... sorry but it's just scaremongering.

this is a good point and well made, but what worries me is not the moderate muslims but the 13% of them in the UK that support violent action against me personally - that is still a number greater than that of my own community; these people are pissing in the multicultural soup for all the rest of you and, more to the point, for everyone who considers themselves religious - *my* community is being penalised by the backlash against *your* radicals - because the host society is trying to be "fair" and "evenhanded", when it is not my lot that are causing the law and order, security and defence issues. jews are not firebombing mosques and islamic schools, or beating muslims in the street - the opposite is the case. why can this not be dealt with? if the muslim communities (that's plural) cannot handle it on their own, then the wider society eventually will - and that will penalise everyone, whether they are part of the problem or not.

Anitchrist will be on the western side of Jordan River (Now West Bank, slowly becoming Israel)

so, according to you, israel is the antichrist? do you actually believe this jew-hating nonsense?

This is just a clever scaremongering tactic of your leaders. The only thing muslims do want from the west is to get the feck out of their territories.

this is such an idiotic, cloth-headed, self-defeating, blame-everyone-else point of view. no society can exist if it seals itself off from the "evil" of the rest of the world. just ask the north koreans. now take a look at the list of patents filed and books published in the islamic world compared to elsewhere. you can't blame that on the jews or the americans, you know. i presume "the muslims" also don't want academic / technology collaboration, ex-pat workers, grant money, foreign aid, NGOs, or tourism then? i'd like to see how anyone builds a railway system in the middle east or any other infrastructure without "the west". there are plenty of brilliant muslim scientists - but they have mostly emigrated, can't think why.

Thats the stated goal of Hamas, Hizbullah, Ikhwan, Taliban........ everybody.

hamas are the palestinian branch of the "ikhwan", as you know very well - there's little ideological difference. but are you saying that the groups you quote are "the" only muslims, then? is there no difference between what hizbullah want and what the taleban want and what the ihkwan want? and "everybody" else? from my point of view, the only thing that i think the groups you quoted can all agree on is that they want me and all my family dead - not "zionists", not "israelis" - jews. from the hamas covenant:

"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps."

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

"Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people."

"the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews."

similar things can be found about hizbullah (ask the people that died in the argentinian community centre bombing) and the local ikhwanis, the muslim association of britain and the hizb-ut-tahrir goons. the only thing i can say for them is that most muslims are not stupid enough to fall for their arguments, which is, apparently, more than i can say for you.

Reuniting their lands is people's right, who the hell are you to deny them that?

you're denying it to the jewish people, aren't you? and what do you mean by "land"? the C19th nation states drawn up by the europeans? and does that include "al-andalus", in your view? and are you proposing reuniting india and pakistan, then? or the former ottoman empire?

bananabrain

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

I am sure if west get out of muslim lands (which is impossible to happen), then after some time, these territories will have enough wealth that nobody would need to migrate to the west. But what exactly are you going to do with native white converts? AFAIK, England has got a huge number of them. Cat Stevens is an example, are you gonna kick them too?

the huge number of converts is a myth, most convert for marriage reasons.

Secondly, Muslims are in the west because you dont have enough young men. So where are you gonna get them.... China? You need them as much as they need you. They need jobs, you need work force.

i disagree, there are plenty of unemployed English peopple.

Pakistan and India separated because Hindus weren't willing to give Muslims their rights in a Hindu majority country. That hasn't changed even today. For example very famous Muslims (like Shabana Azmy) dont get apartments in Mumbai just because they are Muslim. There has been a huge Sachar report about all that. I guess for the same reason Bangladesh didnt become a part of India. So I don't see any reunification needed or happening.

At one time muslims were the ruling class in India, where they taxed all the Hindu's. The British took over and reversed the situation at least thats what I saw on TV.

Given that at one time all muslim lands where not muslim lands what if the previous owners want it back ? Like Israel for example.

 

[Snoopy]

Given that at one time all muslim lands where not muslim lands what if the previous owners want it back ?

Let's ignore the fact that "the previous owners" are all long dead, for the sake of this...

If the previous owners (do they have the title deeds?) to all lands want their lands back, then by your logic all the pagans in the world should reclaim their planet back.

s.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Let's ignore the fact that "the previous owners" are all long dead, for the sake of this...

If the previous owners (do they have the title deeds?) to all lands want their lands back, then by your logic all the pagans in the world should reclaim their planet back.

s.

its not my logic, its was a question addressed to Farhan.

 

[farhan]

the huge number of converts is a myth, most convert for marriage reasons.

According to wiki article, there were 179733 (11.6 % of muslim population) white muslims in UK in 2001. Lets suppose there is only one white muslim, what are you gonna do with him?

i disagree, there are plenty of unemployed English peopple.

Then they wont have the required education/skills. Nobody allows people in their country without reason.

At one time muslims were the ruling class in India, where they taxed all the Hindu's. The British took over and reversed the situation at least thats what I saw on TV.

Muslims taxed everybody. There is a whole jizya mythology in the west, while nobody talks about zakat. When non-muslims live under a govt, they have to pay the taxes, muslims are paying taxes too. its not that only non-muslims are paying the taxes.

Given that at one time all muslim lands where not muslim lands what if the previous owners want it back ? Like Israel for example.

The locals converted to Islam. Iran still has Persians, South Asia still has South Asians, Bosnia/Albania still has Bosniaks/Albanians. The only place where people were forced out was Turkey. And that was under a treaty between Turks and Greeks. Pak-India is another example where people migrated to other country. None of them want their original homeland back now.

Palestinians didnt kick out Jews. Jews have no right to uproot natives who were living there for centuries. Secondly there is no evidence regarding how many of the people who are now "Palestinians" were back then "jews". Because many of them must have converted to Islam.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

According to wiki article, there were 179733 (11.6 % of muslim population) white muslims in UK in 2001. Lets suppose there is only one white muslim, what are you gonna do with him?

well i would dispute those stats, when i was a muslim there hardly any converts.

you said that muslims wanted the west out of there lands, so by that logic muslims should not be in western lands, as for what I would do personally its not my call really. but if muslims are calling for westerners to get out their lands while living the west that seems really hypocritical.

Then they wont have the required education/skills. Nobody allows people in
their country without reason.

in UK pretty much allows anyone in, plus some immigrant groups use marriage as a means to immigration.

Muslims taxed everybody. There is a whole jizya mythology in the west, while nobody talks about zakat. When non-muslims live under a govt, they have to pay the taxes, muslims are paying taxes too. its not that only non-muslims are paying the taxes.

as i understood it there was a special tax for Hindu's, but I will need to find a source for that.

The locals converted to Islam. Iran still has Persians, South Asia still has South Asians, Bosnia/Albania still has Bosniaks/Albanians. The only place where people were forced out was Turkey. And that was under a treaty between Turks and Greeks. Pak-India is another example where people migrated to other country. None of them want their original homeland back now.

Palestinians didnt kick out Jews. Jews have no right to uproot natives who were living there for centuries. Secondly there is no evidence regarding how many of the people who are now "Palestinians" were back then "jews". Because many of them must have converted to Islam.

 

[bananabrain]

Let's ignore the fact that "the previous owners" are all long dead, for the sake of this...

we're not dead, at least not enough to satisfy islamist groups. however, i am not kidding myself that the "ownership" argument plays with anyone except us and nutty christians, who have questionable ulterior motives in any case - the Torah may be the title deeds, but its provenance is hardly enforceable in a human court.

According to wiki article, there were 179733 (11.6 % of muslim population) white muslims in UK in 2001. Lets suppose there is only one white muslim, what are you gonna do with him?

i think you're labouring under the misapprehension that this is about race and nationality - it isn't. nobody is proposing systematic discrimination or deportation of muslims, particularly on grounds of skin colour. the point is that there are certain BEHAVIOURS that are unacceptable in uk society (and, by extension, western societies), which i outlined here:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/germany-gives-up-on-multi-13250-2.html#post234890

to reiterate my arguments for those who can't be bothered to click through, i define "democratic values" which i believe to be precisely those that make western societies a good place to live compared to, say, iran or saudi or north korea or uganda:

1. equality of gender, sexuality, race and religion before the law
2. responsibility to be aware of and obey the civil law
3. if one's private religious / moral /ethical code comes into conflict with the civil law, having a way of reconciling the two that does not disadvantage either those not of your religion or those that are

in terms of the behaviours that are unacceptable:

1. you can't kill gay people and beat women for the way they dress, or comedians and cartoonists for making fun of things you happen to care about.
2. if someone from your group is a criminal, you report them to the police, not hide them out of a misplaced sense of group solidarity.
3. you don't blow stuff up, or go abroad to attack the army of the country you're living in (and expect to come back and avail yourselves of your civil rights afterwards).
4. you don't seek to have other citizens disadvantaged because of private considerations - i.e. what your religion believes, as opposed to the civil law provides.

as i pointed out in the other thread, the germans, british, french and americans all appear to agree on these things. there is no earthly reason a muslim of whatever colour and heritage should not be able to sign up to these, whether s/he is born here or not. if you can't, you will inevitably fall foul of the civil law not because of what you believe, but because of how you act.

Palestinians didnt kick out Jews. Jews have no right to uproot natives who were living there for centuries. Secondly there is no evidence regarding how many of the people who are now "Palestinians" were back then "jews". Because many of them must have converted to Islam.

no, palestinians didn't kick out jews - because the jews stood up for themselves and prevented this by force. i am not disagreeing with you that jews have a right to uproot "natives" (a pernicious term in this case), incidentally. so what are your views on the arab and muslim states that kicked out their jews, the results of which makes up half the israeli population - iraq (where my family are from), iran, egypt, algeria, tunisia, syria, lebanon, etc? can these people go back? will they be compensated for the assets they lost, in the way the palestinians are expecting to be compensated?

you haven't answered any of my other questions, but then again this may be because you consider me to be the "antichrist".

b'shalom

bananabrain