But this isn't in any way forcing other people to convert to Islam. Yeah, and the thread was also host to pages of 911 debate. Who cares about staying on topic? I don't agree with the jizya, from what I listed.
That wasn't the point. It isn't - or not directly - related to the below, which you seem to have missed. Again: It's relevant to a point, below, since that's the society Omar and you want. See? Now that's all you had to say. Think of how much easier it could have been for you. Of course the new question is above.
Geoff, I think you misunderstood me. I agree with the jizya. I meant to say, I don't agree with the jizya being removed. My mistake.
Well then, why not? The jizya was often double zakat, which was sometimes optional. Could you accept a flat tax rate for everyone? Also, what do you think about the treatment afforded apostates? You seem to be dancing around it above. Should people be allowed to leave islam?
Article published Jul 17, 2007 Bush office is anti-Muslim, group says By Audrey Hudson and Sara A. Carter - A Muslim civil rights group today blamed Bush administration policies for promoting "Islamophobia" and said the "war on terror" won't stop terrorists. "The new perception is that the United States has entered a war with Islam itself," said Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the national board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). "Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot eradicate it by declaring a war against it. The war on terror is causing us infinitely more harm than the terrorists could have ever imagined." Mr. Ahmed, who spoke at CAIR symposium at the National Press Club, said the war against terrorists is driven by an "irrational" fear that the Bush administration has inculcated in the American public. The chance of being killed in a terrorist attack, he said, is 1 in 80,000 over a lifetime. "It is important to bear in mind that terrorists cannot destroy America," he said as a member of a panel discussing the symposium theme, "Attacking Islam: Implications for Social Cohesion and U.S. Relations with the Muslim World." The U.S., he said, is too powerful and too resourceful for terrorists to destroy. The Bush Administration's policies in Iraq has driven a deep wedge between Muslim's and non-Muslim people in the United States, he said. "Policies driven by fear will be naturally irrational. Thus in this state of irrationality the Bush administration often through their surrogates have resorted to fear-mongering. This has unleashed a vicious cycle, one in which fear leads to bad policies and bad policies lead to more fear. "The popular discourse in America today remains mired in stereotypical denouncements about Islam. As a result Muslims and their faith remained misunderstood, feared and shunned." David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union, said in turn that while Osama bin Laden and those who commit terrorism in the name of Islam may represent no one but themselves, "those who represent Islam have an obligation to themselves, and to the faith they profess, to condemn them lest [other Muslims] suffer for their crimes. "If CAIR wants respect as representing the best of Islam to the West, it must shun the role of enabler by siding with the enemies of terror and intolerance wherever they are found," Mr. Keene said. "The Muslim who attacks Jews and Christians as pigs or Crusaders is as responsible for the breakdown in civility in the modern world as the Christian who implies that all Muslims harbor a desire to kill a Christian or a Jew." Mr. Keene compared CAIR to the emergence of the Italian-American Anti-Defamation League of the 1970s, which he said became "particularly upset whenever anyone mentioned the existence of the 'Mafia,' which they took as implying that Italian-Americans were all Mafioso or criminals. "If someone used the word in public, [the Italian-American Anti-Defamation League] was willing to stage demonstrations on the grounds that its usage was racist and that, anyhow, the Mafia didn't exist. People began to ignore the League because what its leaders were insisting on as true just didn't match up very well with the world we live in." Mr. Keene said CAIR feeds negative perceptions of Islam with a similarly censorious and hypersensitive attitude toward American newspapers, magazines, and radio and television networks. "We are meeting today at the National Press Club, which is in a way a living memorial to the freedom of the press that is so important a part of the American tradition. The platform on which we speak is open to all because we believe in the right even of those with whom we disagree to speak their minds. But some reporters have been barred by CAIR from covering this panel because by criticizing CAIR or its policies they have been condemned as anti-Muslim when they are, in fact, simply reporters doing their jobs," he said. A reporter for The Washington Times was the only reporter asked to leave the room today. After she was escorted out, the doors to the session, which had remained open, were closed. Mr. Keene said that CAIR has attacked as "anti-Muslim" a number of publications, including The Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, the Tampa Tribune, the New Republic magazine, U.S. News & World Report, and the Weekly Reader, a popular newspaper for schoolchildren. "My hope and belief was that this event was going to be an open discussion," he said in a brief interview after the symposium. "It was what I said in my speech. You don't restrict access because someone disagrees with you."
I think Fraggle has given a very good reply in another thread that covers this: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1476717&postcount=42
What has Bush to do with the history of islamic jurisprudence, and how CAIR aims to abet it in North America? Is Karl Rove the writer of the hanafi laws? If everyone is running to extremism because they're frightened of the big bad Bush, why did CAIR's membership drop 90% after 9/11?
Hogwash.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Check out my myoblast thread and tell me what your friend was doing.
Whoever claims CAIR is not doing enough? http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/d...=2005&m=July&x=20050714180813cpataruK0.956341
OK, so we agree that the less-than-friendly sharia regulations are not George's fault? ....eh? What friend?
This is the problem, with Diamondheart's as well: What percentage, exactly, is "the majority" ? How many of the "minority" do we have to deal with, and why isn't CAIR helping us deal with them? I'm sure the people who adopt the religion have their reasons, as do the ones who join the Moonies and the Mormons and the Pentacostals, and that doesn't immediately concern me: what concerns me is what happens to the people who give up the religion - or even offend some of its adherents. Including the neighbors. We have Muslims in my town who regard being required to carry seeing eye dogs in their taxis as an infringement of their religion. They have left blind people stranded on the street. CAIR defends them. Salman Rushdie cannot travel without extreme caution: CAIR refuses to defend him, and instead rationalizes his persecutors.
If Muslims, even a minority wanted to commit acts of violence contrary to Islam, then these incidents would be rather common. The fact the Muslims as a whole, or even tiny minorities (if they exist), aren't committing acts of violence in the US informs you that this minority you speak of is non-existent. Out of the 7 million American Muslims, how many are willing to kill people for no reason? Doesn't seem like any at all. Out of all the 260 million Christians, how many are willing to kill people for no reason? Can you give me this percentage? Also in regards to you post: How would you feel if you had to clean up after dogs in your car everyday? If anything, cab drivers should have the choice of what customers they take. Otherwise, they need to jack up the price to pay for the shampooing. Also, why should a political organization be held responsable for protection of someone who constantly derides them and their support group, do the Democrats have to protect Bush, are they allowed to rationalize people who hate Bush, ofcourse.
It doesn't matter how he would feel. The law requires equal access for the handicapped. That means Muslim cab drivers should pick them up or lose their license. If they don't like it, they can quit driving a cab or contact their legislator and lobby to have the law changed. Good luck with the second approach. Here you go with your Rushdie nonsense again. The man does not "constantly" deride Muslims or Arabs. He wrote one novel, which the offended have probably never read and don't have to read, about 20 years ago that you and some other Arabs/Muslims don't like. Or, to use a popular literary analogy, does Salman Rushdie have to wear a Scarlett letter for the rest of his life for a novel he wrote five or six novels ago? That's ridiculous. Get over it. It's in the past. And it's freedom of speech, and that means somebody, somewhere will offend you at some point in your life...
Many cab drivers have to work 12-16 hour shifts and many of them have families to take care of. How would you feel if you had to take a customer, by law, who brought in a dog which ruined the seat and carpet of your cab and you had to clean up after it (losing jobs and receiving no extra money) before taking other customers. This is about the freedom of cab workers to take who they desire and who they don't desire, it is their right. Cab drivers already have to take drunken teenagers who spill alcohol all over their car, and often get shot and robbed in NYC because they are not allowed to carry any guns to protect them. This man has been enciting hatred for a long time against us and been funded by radical christian groups who are trying to curtail our rights. Anyway, he is a minor issue, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are far more serious issues. It's probably best to ignore this lunatic. I have simply stated I don't like him, how is that extreme? I have a right to dislike someone, don't I?
That is false. Rushdie has not been inciting hatred against Muslims, and no Christian groups who are trying to take away your rights are funding him. Why are you making such assertions ? You have said a great deal more than that, including severe slander and statements reasonably interpretable as threats. Guide dogs do not create messes in cabs - at least, no more than people do. And licensed cab drivers have no right to refuse a service they have promised to provide, based on religious beliefs - if your religion forbids you to do certain jobs, as is common among the many religions, then you find a different job or a different religion, just as everyone else has to. CAIR seems unable to understand, let alone support, this fundamental principle of American civilization.
Diamond, your argument rests on the unproven premise that dogs make messes. You've given us no evidence that they do, nor explained logically how messy dogs (if they exist) are different than messy or drunk humans, legally or philosophically speaking. You also contradict yourself, rambling on about the "freedom" of the cab drivers, then feel absolutely no compunction about making statements impacting the freedoms of Mr. Rushdie. And, as Ice points out, you lie about the man and continue to lie about him. Rushdie is in fact a Muslim. Did you know that? So to claim he's working against Islam is ridiculous...
I'm not one to hide my beliefs, and I stated numerous times I simply don't care of what happens to him. I dislike him, this is true, but I'm not one prone to violence of any kind. I believe that whoever lies and spreads bigotry, the judgement is not with humans its with the Creator. This has nothing to do with religion, its about the rights of cab drivers. Many people in America do not care about the rights of their minorities, which is evident at the hatred being displayed toward Muslims and Spanish people. Did you read the example i just posted, many cab drivers have jobs to do and families to look after when they get home, the last thing they need is being forced to carry dogs in their cars which will soil their carpet (making them lose jobs and the chance to make more money). No headache should be forced on hard-working Americans like this, if the drivers don't take them, its their choice, call someone else. I have experience with many friends who are in the business, the premise of complaints rests on the fact that dogs are unable to control themselves unlike humans, they soil the carpet and waste alot of the workers' time. Anyone who denies the prophethood of Messenger Muhammad (peace be to him) is no longer considered Muslim. Anyone who mocks and ridicules a prophet of Islam, is no longer Muslim. There is general consensus among all 1.7 billion Muslims of the world that this man has left the folds of Islam with his disgraceful insults against our Prophet. You don't need to be a genius, only have elementary knowledge to figure out that anyone who insults Muhammad (peace be to him) is no longer Muslim.
Then you are also okay if a white cab driver decides that Muslims are too dangerous to pick up (the whole "bomb's strapping to the waist" thing**), and decides not to pick them up either. You ARE for that whole "freedom of choice" thing... or are muslims the exception to your arbitrary rule? ~String _________________________________________________________________ **that the bombing thing is real or false doesn't matter to you either, I hope, since you felt free to invent facts like you did. Seeing eye dogs (and their counterparts for other handicaps) are the best trained and well mannered animals on Earth. You make it sound like they are all shitting and pissing in the back seats of cabbies just to ruin the livelyhoods of the poor, hardworking (and subsequently discriminated against) Muslims.
The example you just presented has no relation to what we were talking about. That would actually be a case of religious discrimination (akin to Nazis in Germany and treatment of American blacks after slavery). Do cab drivers have the right to deny dogs in their car on the basis that these dogs might soil their cabs (which they will subsequently be fully responsible, monetarily, to clean up after)?
Actually, String's just stitched you up and shown your rhetoric for what it is: Rhetoric. Either you're for freedom of choice or you're not. Being for it means people can choose to behave as racists, if they wish, or in any other offensive way, so long as it is not illegal. Harping on about aid dogs, which you still haven't proven to be more meddlesome than humans, is nothing more than a red herring, and you know it... Oh, and by the way, I'm pretty certain that not picking up people with aid dogs is illegal. So the Muslim cab drivers (either in theory or practice) you are defending are breaking the law...
