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

A question mark doesn't make a statement that has a premise a question

I condemn both.

Respect should be mutual.
Why should I respect someone when they start rediculing me or my religion, defaming us?

If freedom of speech can legitimize abuse, redicule, defamation, etc, why shouldn't freedom of action legitimize murder?

Radicalism is rawness.
Ali(PBUH) said:
Don't be so hard lest you break. don't be so soft lest you are squeezed.

 

You certainly have a lot more to say about you condemnation of the cartoonist than the murderers. From your posts, it appears that you condemn the cartoonists a lot more than their killers.

Yes respect should be mutual, and retaliation for disrespect should be equivalent. The justice should be equal to the injustice, not greater.

Because speech does not cause any immediate physical harm. If one is insulted by words, one should react with words. And that's the core issue here. If radical Muslims reacted to insults and disobedience from non-Muslims in a more reasonable manner, non-Muslims wouldn't be writing cartoons to mock them for their outrageously extreme reactions.

Yes, and let me break down exactly how I feel about Islam and Muslims:

I don't have a problem if Muslims want to live under theocratic rule in their own countries. If they want to ban free speech, limit what women can wear and what they can do, ban the use of alcohol, ban homosexuality, and so on and so forth, go ahead and do it. I don't have a problem with Muslims enacting harsh punishments, including death, within their own countries for the aforementioned sins. I don't have a problem with Muslims emigrating to the West and living side-by-side with Westerners. I don't even have a problem with Muslims emigrating to the West and continuing to live according to their own Islamic standards and expecting other immigrant Muslims to also adhere to those standards (this is why I completely supported the Islamic teams right to forfeit the game because of concerns about physical contact with girls).

What I do have a problem with is Muslims who emigrate to the West and then expect the non-Muslims around them to adhere to Islamic law. If any given Muslim does not like the values of Western culture or is uncomfortable being surrounded by people who don't believe in Islam, please, leave, or don't come here. Stay home, where it is more comfortable.

I've never, in my life, had a thought that maybe I should go to the Middle East. I have no interest in seeing any of it. And we don't see radical feminists sneaking into the Middle East to set off bombs, or start gun fights in the streets over what Westerns would consider human rights abuses toward women. They might write blogs about how they feel about it. They might give speeches about how depraved they think Muslim men are, but they don't physically attack people, murder them in the streets, blow them up in the middle of a holiday.

If moderate Muslims can't find a way to reign in these hard radical extremists, Islam will break, and though I am more than willing to be tolerant of Islam, even though I find much of it to be personally offensive, I will not be so soft as to be squeezed by Islamic rule.

 

That is what you and western media claim.
There is no such a thing as Muslims killing non-Muslims. There were non-Muslims living in Islamic societies from the time of the prophet (PBUH) without any problems. It's just for some decades that they have had problems, mostly with the recent appearance of Zionism, and you are the one trying to legitimize that saying it is Judaism!!

By the way, Islam prohibits taking of a life except for having killed another one, or corruption on the earth.

 

What do you mean there's no such thing as Muslims killing non-Muslims? Are you saying that you and other moderate Muslims don't consider these radical Muslim terrorists killing people to be Muslims? Because they think they're Muslim. It's like a big part of their lives, being Muslim, at least in their own minds. They yell it out loud while they do these things.

Please, explain what you just wrote because I need some clarification here.

 

It's probably a no true scotsman argument.

 

I told you what the Islamic principle is, quoting from Koran.
So not anything they do is according to the Islamic principles. We are not allowed to kill people other than to retaliate killing of another person or spreading corruption on the earth. Killing an unassuming non-Muslim is against this principle.
These terrorists are at best wrong, and as far as I know, condemned by most Muslims, including me.
Yes, this action of theirs is, as I quoted, anti-Islam.

 

The value of life is the complete opposite of Iranian and Saudi Arabian laws. Two sets of Islamic variations that are direct violations of human rights. Sad.

 

So as long as we are modest and humble toward Islam, we're safe? If we're a little more pretentious and arrogant toward Islam, we're fair game? Is that what you mean?

So why aren't you doing more to stop these radicals? You know they are tarnishing the reputation of all Muslims, right? Westerners don't have the deep understanding of all the subtle nuances of Islamic law. Terrorists say they are Muslim, and we take them at their word, and there are many Westerners who wouldn't mind one bit if all of Islam were wiped off the face of the earth. I don't support these Western extremists, either, but all we need is one trigger-happy Western leader, and a major world war could erupt over these radical terrorists.

 

Oops!.......I taught unassuming meant unaware of the happenings.
No I just meant innocent people cannot be killed, and you can be as arrogant as you like, Just no rediculing, since some Muslims won't tolerate that

You expect me to jail them in UK, for example?

- - - Updated - - -

Life has no value in terms of money

 

Now you've deflected from our discussion. Our discussion was the horrific ways the Iranian government treats their people.

 

No, but I think even homegrown radical terrorism is rooted in organizations within the Middle East. I think moderate Islamic nations should be doing more to eliminate them from within their own borders. I think moderate Muslim scholars and leaders could do more to speak out against them

 

Mr Khamenei has recently written a letter to the young westerners, inviting them to read Koran. There probably cannot be done more. If they would read about Islam, they would read Koran.
I doubt the terrorists have root in organizations in Islamic countries. Seems more of the influence of a local, offshoot Mullah.

 

I have?
I have nothing to do with the government as an ME student.

 

Your English is better than the American's. Mind you with the appalling quagmire of inappropriate grammar that infests American 'English' it isn't really surprising!

 

How do you feel about the Iranian government committing such acts of human rights violations?

 

I don't know what violations do you speak about but the government, esp Mr. Khamenei, has its own way of looking at the world, with its own followers.

 

Here, I'll cite them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...of_Iran#Extralegal_violations_of_human_rights

 

Some of the rulings (not all of them) match rules of Shia Islam and it should not be questioned from me if I accept them or not, since I am a Shia Muslim.
But I wonder about the source of the reports: If it is just the hearing from the people, out prophet (PBUH) said that it suffices for a man to lie if he narrates anything he hears.
And there are Bahais here

 

All you have to do is google "Iran human rights violations". There are MILLIONS of sources.

There's no denying it. Only the brainwashed deny it.

 

I am not denying it. And I am not brain-washed.
The problem is, the internet sources seem to mix Islamic rules which they think is against human rights with their hearings of the people.
I wonder how do they distinguish the right hearing from the wrong, and the Islamic rulings are Islamic rulings. There can be no question of human rights when it comes to Islamic rulings.

 

Did you know that in Iran, stoning people to death is legal?

 

Did you know that in the US, electrocution of people to death is legal?

 

Not all people.
When you are killing someone, decapitation, frying, stoning or other methods of execution make no difference for the deceased. Only for the executioners can that make a difference.
As far as I know, it is only for an adulterer with a married woman.
You can argue why s/he is gonna be executed in the first place and the answer would be that s/he did a violation of a social bond and didn't repent there after for if they did, they would not be executed.

 

That's an example of human rights violations. It appears you are very much brainwashed by religion.

 

I don't know what it has to do with being brainwashed.
I can claim you are being brainwashed by human right.