Muslim school which objected to girls on boys soccer team told to abide by rules

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_..._Iran#Provisions_in_violation_of_Human_Rights

 

In some countries they are very closely related.

 

The problem with these Islamic states is that they want to do God's work. It's God's place to cast judgment and punish sinners, not ours.

 

People can decide what the rulings of their government should be.


And reportedly:
People vote for Islamic rulings in 1980 referendum.
People have representatives in the parliament, whether true or false.
People elect the administration.
People elect the Expediency council, electing the supreme leader.
The supreme leader nominates representatives in the guardian council who verify the qualification of every parliamentary candidate and verify every rulings ratified by the parliament.

And the loop goes forever.

So the 1980 referendum determines our rulings forever.

 

Fair enough, but when Muslims leave these countries, they too often start demanding other countries accommodate they're religious ideas, which often clash with Western notions of human rights. They don't ask for popular votes. They simply make demands.

If Muslims want to be governed by Islamic law--great. Then stay in your democratically determined Islamic theocracies, and certainly, no Muslim should ever be punishing "infidels" for breaking Islamic law. What did you think, for example, of the Charlie Hebdo attack?

 

A wrong action on wrong people.

 

Haha after two Muslims try a mass murder at a drawing contest...

Its the bikers you focus on. Typical.

 

Oh yeah, I'm sorry. I forgot I need to publicly denounce Islam in every post I write or else I'm a radical Muslim sympathizer.

I wish I had the same time to waste as you to post such nonsense.

 

Your cryptic response begs the question: what is the right action, and who are the right people?

 

It was very clear
While we are against the killing, we condemn the teasing that the cartoonists tried to do,

 

What do you say about the public aspect to a sin?

 

So now you're saying it was the wrong action against the right people.

You're not being very clear at all.

 

I'm not entirely sure what this means. Do you mean people who sin in public? In my opinion, only sin that are directly harmful to other people (murder, theft, etc) should be legislated by the government.

 

Did I say the cartoonists were right?
I already said I condemn their action of teasing the prophet. So they were pure wrong

 

So, you think that, for example someone that goes in the country and spreads the false news that for example Muslims are such and such and so defames them and tries alienating them in the society has done no harm to the society?

 

No, but your original statement (It was the wrong action against the wrong people) implies not that the people were wrong but that the action should have been directed toward other people. I understand that you're not a native English speaker, and while I am impressed by your personal courage to post on an English website, don't suggest that it our fault if your posts are unclear.

So you do think that people who do not follow Islam should still obey Islamic law?

 

Well, I said harmful to people, not society, but if such criticisms are harmful to your society it can only be because a majority of people within your society sympathize with them. In a society where the majority of people do not accept such criticisms, there should be no need to legislate their speech. The beliefs of the citizens alone should be enough to protect the society without government intervention.

 

Have I said 'mistaken' action?

Where did I say that? Some courtesy is required of all people, unless they are neanderthals, or in a primitive, uncivilized community, and as far as I know, France is not one

 

But it can develop such a misconception. every theory finds followers eventually

 

I don't understand this question.

I didn't say that was what you said. I asked you a question for clarification.

Courtesy is nice, but certainly not required. Freedom of speech was designed specifically to allow for discourtesy. Also, it's best to consider the actions which caused such discourteous reactions when deciding who is wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

If theories find enough followers to ruin a society, that society ought to have been ruined.

 

Aren't people devided into societies?

 

Yea, and a society ought to be designed to protect those people, not to protect itself from those people.

 

I said wrong action, not 'mistaken' action

Really?
I didn't sound like a question at all!

Look, some lines are not to be crossed.
If one allows themselves to cross lines, they have transgressed their limits.
One needs courtesy to observe these rules.
Freedom of speech can be no excuse, as freedom of action cannot be an excuse to harm people, be it their body or their reputation, time, money or other such nonphysical things.

Of course it can alleviate the sin of the discourteous, but it is still a sin.
And a big sin is being part of the cult who tries to defame a specific group like Muslim.
Rumi's peom gos like this:
If you sinned, be fearful, don't confide
that's the seed, growable by god
He covers it again and again
so that comes to you some shame
.........................

Rumi says:
Any destruction of the past people was whence
Their thought of Santalum as incense
They had the power to distinguish but then
Greed and lust would surely blind them

The wrong theories can and should be struggled against, and the societies don't have to be ruined.
And you theoryisout of the question.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you mean?

 

It shouldn't sound like anything, as it was a typed statement, but if you look back at the post, you should be able to see the question mark.

All this simply sounds like you want to judge non-Muslims by Islamic standards. You seem to be blaming the cartoonists for their own murders, with little, if any, condemnation of those who killed them.

You show no respect for the values of cultures that don't follow the laws of Islam, yet you expect these cultures to respect your values.

You can struggle against ideas you can't accept all you want, but if the majority of people within your culture start to accept them, your values will fall apart. That's why some cultures have limited freedom of speech, in order to control people's ability to question the status quo.

This is why Western cultures need to flood Islamic cultures with opposing ideas, because radical Muslims born of those cultures are trying to flood our cultures with there ideas.

 

Diyya doesn't mean the value of life. Who said that?