Is Islam spreading too fast.

[Irish Warrior]

Should we bottle the increase in Islamic expansion? Or is it not a threat? Or (insert other idea)?

[justicar5]

religous choice is a fundemental right, we cannot go banning religions.

[boofhead]

religous choice is a fundemental right, we cannot go banning religions.

Yes we can, if we want to. ''Fundamental'' or ''human'' rights are just made up and invented, they can be abandoned at will.

If Kali-worshipping Thugee made a resurgence, we could ban the religion.

[Achilles Return]

Yes we can, if we want to. ''Fundamental'' or ''human'' rights are just made up and invented, they can be abandoned at will.

If Kali-worshipping Thugee made a resurgence, we could ban the religion.

Perhaps in your country, but not in mine.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Perhaps in your country, but not in mine.

actually the thugee religion could be banned in the USA even though congress is supposedly not allowed to legislate about religion.

it advocates murder and would be dealt with just like Waco or whatever.

[PointOfViewGun]

actually the thugee religion could be banned in the USA even though congress is supposedly not allowed to legislate about religion.

it advocates murder and would be dealt with just like Waco or whatever.

Islam advocates murder?

[Copperknickers II]

Yes we can, if we want to. ''Fundamental'' or ''human'' rights are just made up and invented, they can be abandoned at will.

If Kali-worshipping Thugee made a resurgence, we could ban the religion.

Haha, well if your policymakers are receiving their world religion information from Indiana Jones like you they shouldn't be banning anything. Thuggee was a lifestyle, attributing it to Kali worship is rather like attributing Latino drug cartels to Catholicism.

In terms of Islam - its not spreading very quickly compared with Christianity did, and if handled correctly it doesn't cause any harm.

[Dr. Croccer]

Yes we can, if we want to. ''Fundamental'' or ''human'' rights are just made up and invented, they can be abandoned at will.

And doing so is completely wrong and against everything several thousand years of human civilization. The entire point of fundamental rights is so that morons with superiority complexes don't go around killing people they don't like. For every retard that claims that suspending rights for Muslims is okay for whatever ing reason there's another one saying it about Jews, or blacks or whatever. You can believe in whatever moronic ideology you want, and you're certainly doing that, but don't ing dare transplant it on us. I see no reason why Islamophobes should have more right to disregard human rights than Islamists.

[Fionn son of Cumhaill]

And doing so is completely wrong and against everything several thousand years of human civilization. The entire point of fundamental rights is so that morons with superiority complexes don't go around killing people they don't like. For every retard that claims that suspending rights for Muslims is okay for whatever ing reason there's another one saying it about Jews, or blacks or whatever. You can believe in whatever moronic ideology you want, and you're certainly doing that, but don't ing dare transplant it on us. I see no reason why Islamophobes should have more right to disregard human rights than Islamists.

An enlightened being They seem to be so rare now adays

[justicar5]

Yes we can, if we want to. ''Fundamental'' or ''human'' rights are just made up and invented, they can be abandoned at will.

If Kali-worshipping Thugee made a resurgence, we could ban the religion.

no, we couldn't, we could however ban the human sacrifice (it already is ofc, it being murder and all).

[Holger Danske]

religous choice is a fundemental right, we cannot go banning religions.

Perhaps that is the one thing Humanity would benefit from actually doing.

[Dr. Croccer]

Perhaps that is the one thing Humanity would benefit from actually doing.

I think banning retarded ideologies based on banning things would benefit humanity more.

[Babur]

I think banning retarded ideologies based on banning things would benefit humanity more.

like Communism?

[Simon Cashmere]

religous choice is a fundemental right, we cannot go banning religions.

Well there are limits on religious freedom, the constitution is not a suicide pact and if someone's religion,including and especially Islam says that it has a goal to organise, fund and arm a group of separatists to install a sharia state - then no freedom of religion for them. We are not so committed to freedom of religion that we will pen our suicide note with that committment.

Can't go banning religions? But doesn't Islam ban all sorts of religious practices of others in Islamic states? In Saudi Arabia you cannot have a bible in your luggage, or openly wear a crucifix. Even in Egypt there are great restrictions onthe building of new churches for christians.

What we certainly can do, is restrict the number of muslims that come to the West. As well as say, your religion has no impact, effect, nor will any demands you make based on religion -*ever* be acknowledged or accommodated. Dont want to swim with infidels in the public pool? that's great - don't use the pool. Don't like the fact that the airport doesn't have a muslim prayer room - too bad - don't use the airport if you dont like it. The West, and especially Australia is, an 'as is' proposition. Come here, fit in, get a job, and don't cause trouble. Or don't come here, or indeed leave. But we are not changing Australia to fit sharia values or accommodate sharia 'values'. Ever.

[PointOfViewGun]

Well there are limits on religious freedom, the constitution is not a suicide pact and if someone's religion,including and especially Islam says that it has a goal to organise, fund and arm a group of separatists to install a sharia state - then no freedom of religion for them. We are not so committed to freedom of religion that we will pen our suicide note with that committment.

Care to provide passage from Quran that says that?

[Simon Cashmere]

Care to provide passage from Quran that says that?

We've done the theological debate before, it's pointless. Look at some of the other threads where we've gone through it pretty clearly.

Whatever I post or refer to you just say;

- out of context,
- no one reads it that way,
- that's not followed anymore, there are many many strains of Islam and this is just one of the many
- you could only understand if you had a Phd in Islamic studies, otherwise it is unknowable for you;
- the original Arabic says something much better, and this is just a poor translation.

So if I then post Islamic scholars that say the same thing, they are bad scholars, taken out of context, bad translation, it doesn't mean that.

If Islamic preachers say this in Arabic, it's bad translation, out of context, he's just one, two, 10, 5000 extremists not representing the true Islam...

And then if I post copies of textbooks where that is taught - that is out of context, bad translation, forgeries of the textbook, can't verify its authenticiy.

It's just a neverending game.

I am content to make the claim, I've backed it up, in loads of other threads, to no avail, by referring to the Koran, the hadith, Islamic scholars, and the textbooks where children are taught those beliefs as meaning those things. For the general public, koran, hadith, Islamic scholars, Islamic textbooks taught to children and the statements of Islamic clerics coupled with violence and hatred in line with those beliefs, will be more than enough to convince them. The leftie talking heads and the muslims themselves, we will never convince.

But we don't need to.

[PointOfViewGun]

We've done the theological debate before, it's pointless. Look at some of the other threads where we've gone through it pretty clearly.

Whatever I post or refer to you just say;

- out of context,
- no one reads it that way,
- that's not followed anymore, there are many many strains of Islam and this is just one of the many
- you could only understand if you had a Phd in Islamic studies, otherwise it is unknowable for you;
- the original Arabic says something much better, and this is just a poor translation.

So if I then post Islamic scholars that say the same thing, they are bad scholars, taken out of context, bad translation, it doesn't mean that.

If Islamic preachers say this in Arabic, it's bad translation, out of context, he's just one, two, 10, 5000 extremists not representing the true Islam...

And then if I post copies of textbooks where that is taught - that is out of context, bad translation, forgeries of the textbook, can't verify its authenticiy.

It's just a neverending game.

I am content to make the claim, I've backed it up, in loads of other threads, to no avail, by referring to the Koran, the hadith, Islamic scholars, and the textbooks where children are taught those beliefs as meaning those things. For the general public, koran, hadith, Islamic scholars, Islamic textbooks taught to children and the statements of Islamic clerics coupled with violence and hatred in line with those beliefs, will be more than enough to convince them. The leftie talking heads and the muslims themselves, we will never convince.

But we don't need to.

I didn't ask for a lame excuse. I asked for passages or verse numbers where in the Quran it tell you: it has a goal to organise, fund and arm a group of separatists to install a sharia state.

[Fionn son of Cumhaill]

We've done the theological debate before, it's pointless. Look at some of the other threads where we've gone through it pretty clearly.

Whatever I post or refer to you just say;

- out of context,
- no one reads it that way,
- that's not followed anymore, there are many many strains of Islam and this is just one of the many
- you could only understand if you had a Phd in Islamic studies, otherwise it is unknowable for you;
- the original Arabic says something much better, and this is just a poor translation.

So if I then post Islamic scholars that say the same thing, they are bad scholars, taken out of context, bad translation, it doesn't mean that.

If Islamic preachers say this in Arabic, it's bad translation, out of context, he's just one, two, 10, 5000 extremists not representing the true Islam...

And then if I post copies of textbooks where that is taught - that is out of context, bad translation, forgeries of the textbook, can't verify its authenticiy.

It's just a neverending game.

I am content to make the claim, I've backed it up, in loads of other threads, to no avail, by referring to the Koran, the hadith, Islamic scholars, and the textbooks where children are taught those beliefs as meaning those things. For the general public, koran, hadith, Islamic scholars, Islamic textbooks taught to children and the statements of Islamic clerics coupled with violence and hatred in line with those beliefs, will be more than enough to convince them. The leftie talking heads and the muslims themselves, we will never convince.

But we don't need to.

... Because the Quuran is interpreted in many different ways. Scholars who wish to justify Jihad will find a way to twist the original meaning.And you seem to have missed the fact that i stated that Saudi Arabia has over 2 million Christians. How would there be Christians there if no bible's were allowed into the country?

Have you actually read it or are you going on second hand information? The Koran that is...

[Armenum]

Well there are limits on religious freedom, the constitution is not a suicide pact and if someone's religion,including and especially Islam says that it has a goal to organise, fund and arm a group of separatists to install a sharia state - then no freedom of religion for them. We are not so committed to freedom of religion that we will pen our suicide note with that committment.

Can't go banning religions? But doesn't Islam ban all sorts of religious practices of others in Islamic states? In Saudi Arabia you cannot have a bible in your luggage, or openly wear a crucifix. Even in Egypt there are great restrictions onthe building of new churches for christians.

What we certainly can do, is restrict the number of muslims that come to the West. As well as say, your religion has no impact, effect, nor will any demands you make based on religion -*ever* be acknowledged or accommodated. Dont want to swim with infidels in the public pool? that's great - don't use the pool. Don't like the fact that the airport doesn't have a muslim prayer room - too bad - don't use the airport if you dont like it. The West, and especially Australia is, an 'as is' proposition. Come here, fit in, get a job, and don't cause trouble. Or don't come here, or indeed leave. But we are not changing Australia to fit sharia values or accommodate sharia 'values'. Ever.

Well Christians enjoy full rights and live comfortably in countries like Lebanon, Egypt, and even Iran. In Egypt, Coptic Christians and Muslims were chanting that they were united, holding crosses with the Qoran. There's a illusion that all Christians in Middle East or Arab countries are persecuted, but that just isn't true. I bet you I can find cases where in the West where Muslims have been discriminated for their faith, so it's not really that black and white.

[Big War Bird]

Is Islam spreading too fast.

Is that a question or a statment of fact?