[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="monco59"][QUOTE="1_Blood"][QUOTE="monco59"]Thanks for the religious lesson. Still, who gets to decide what is actually "threatening Islam" and what is not? Seems like a loophole that terrorists are all too happy to exploit.monco59
Well, that's them not Islam. Judge people by their actions not their religion.That was my point, it's the terrorists. Still, any religion that incites it's members to armed resistance on such vague grounds (Yes, I mean Christianity as well, remember the Middle Ages and Crusades?) is a pretty dangerous religion. Having said that, I believe people are the ones who make any given religion dangerous. People are the ones who have written the so called "holy books", and people are the ones who interpret them wrongfully.
You call, not being allowed to perform religious obligations VAGUE GROUNDS. I mean isnt that the fundamental right of all beings and one which cannot be usurped. Shan't we fight for our right? Imagine someone steals your possessions and rights are you gonna thank him,man?
Actyally, yes I do. No one has ever clearly defined what constitutes "not being allowed to perform religious obligations", apart from the obvious denial of a given religion. These terrorists are always blowing stuff up and saying they are only protecting their religion. So who exactly is threatening it in the first place? They are the ones who are doing the most damage to their own religion by acting like savages and thus reinforcing the stereotype that Islam is violent. Remember that guy in Afghanistan who wanted to convert to Christianity? He was threatened with a death sentence for "mocking Islam". If that isn't the very definition of misuse of power, I don't know what is. And vague grounds is the very thing that allows people to misuse whatever power they have.
In this case who is the "power"? A tyrannical or overbearing government? Or the religion itself? These religions are (mostly) not directly responsible for the violent actions, but it's worth noting that if they didn't exist to be misinterpreted then a lot of it could be avoided (or, is it the case that these people aren't misguided, but simply using religion as a cover? In which case removing the relgion would make no difference).
Â
Log in to comment