ErshadAhamed: you wrote:
By above discussion, I meant to "fight" for truth to prevail. "Fight" with Da'wa (spread of knowledge).
If Muslims limit themselves to informing people with knowledge, I don't have a problem with that. However, not everyone is going to believe that Islam is the truth. Even if it were the truth (which I don't believe) there would be people who would not accept it, just as there are people who do not believe that the world is round.
That is where the problem comes. You would say it absolutely moral to do abortion if it is an "unwanted" pregnancy. That is not my morality. I believe in absolute morality.
Actually, I would not. My position is a bit more complex than that.
First of all, I consider failure to use birth control, and getting an abortion instead, as rather immoral behavior. Correspondingly, I regard laws against birth control, (or lies about the effectiveness of birth control which discourage people from using it) which then result in unwanted pregnancies, and thus an increase in abortion, as ALSO being immoral, because they result in an increase in abortion, however they might be intended.
However, abortion is an 'immoral behavior' which people have a right to. One person, even a fetus, cannot have a claim to own another person's body. That said, I would also consider to be highly immoral someone who waits until near the end of pregnancy to get an abortion. If they don't want to have a baby, they should probably make that decision earlier. It is not clear to me when a fetus becomes a 'person'. There are no proofs of when it might or might not have a soul, so I can't base a decision on that. However, science does know a lot about brain function, and based on what science knows about the brain, the fetus is not a 'person' in any meaningful sense of the word, prior to the sixth month of pregnancy, because that is when certain changes in the brain (myelenization of the nerve sheaths) takes place, and before that occurs, it simply isn't physically possible for the brain in the fetus to have any thoughts or feelings.
There are also some medical reasons for abotion to take place, some babies may have horrible deformities. In other cases, the mother may not be able to survive continued pregnancy or giving birth. Although a cesearean operation can solve some (not all) of these problems. A third reason is when a mother becomes pregnant with more than 3 babies at once. If there are too many babies inside the mother, they are likely to be born prematurely and none of them to survive, and in this case, selectively aborting some of the fetuses (the ones that appear smallest) at an early stage will give the remaining fetuses a better chance of surviving.
As for labelling people terrorists, when your military kills thousands of children and women in Iraq, afghanistan and palestine, why don't you call them terrorists? Now they protect peace and prevent evil? how? by killing children?
As a matter of fact, I'm a Libertarian. As such I disagree with a great many agressive actions done by the US military. From what I can tell, they do things which are neither more, nor less, nor otherwise violent, that the things done by Muslims, or various other countries as well.
Look at yourself. If you see, in the above posts no one claimed Hinduism violent, no one claims Christianity violent for what Brevik did in norway? Why do you call Islam violent?
Based on your posts in which you said people had 'no choice' but to accept the truth, and that Muslims were doing them a 'favor' by forcing them to accept Islam. Both of which statements seem to me to justify violence done by Muslims, according to you.
If you see, in the above posts no one claimed Hinduism violent, no one claims Christianity violent for what Brevik did in norway? Why do you call Islam violent?
If you read my posts in this thread, I have also disagreed with what the Hindus did, both to the woman in the original article, and for their threats against Hard Rock Moslem. I object to ALL violence regarding religion. As for this incident at Brevik, I was unaware of it. If it involves Christians using violence, and they were the initiators of the violence, then I would object to that as well.
And, oh, thank you for the suggestion. I don't really want to get along with the world by rejecting the command of my creator. Just because it is politically incorrect according to you, I can't leave the truth. Because if I do a small unislamic thing today just for the sake getting along with the world, tomorrow you would ask me to leave my faith. I don't care if the world is not happy with me. I am not answerable to the world. I am answerable to my master.
If your master just tells you to verbally talk to people about Islam, I don't have a problem with that, although many people will get annoyed if you continue to talk to them, personally, when they say they do not wish to speak to you any more. It probably depends on WHERE you are talking, going to someone's house which is their property, when they have stated they do not want you on their property, is a form of violence. Talking in public, or making newspaper articles or other such things are not violence, so I don't have a problem with that. On the other hand, if your 'God' tells you to be violent against people, to try and force them to become Muslims or live like Muslims, then I would have a problem with that.
Everything that a muslim does looks offensive to the world. If he does a prayer in the public..that is offensive. But, Oh no, kissing in public doesn't look offensive? Dancing hand-in-hand doesn't look offensive? partying hard in public doesn't look offensive? We have lost enough for the cause of societal approval or recognition and getting along.
No, EVERYTHING that Muslims do is NOT offensive to me. To take your example, praying in public is NOT offensive to me. Neither are kissing, dancing, or partying in public, or several others things that most Americans AND most Moslems probably WOULD be offended to see in public.
Praying in such a way that it blocks the traffic in the street IS offensive to me, but it would be equally offensive to me if someone kissed, danced, partied, or did anything else in such a way that it blocked traffic.
I am also not offended by Hijab, as many Americans are. I *am* offended by laws in some Islamic countries requiring people to wear hijab, but I am equally offended by the laws in France which ban hijab. I myself sometimes like to wear trench coats, which some people are offended by. Despite my liking to wear them, I would be offended by laws requiring people to wear them, as well as laws (which do exist as rules in some public schools btw) banning people from wearing them. As I would by laws either requiring or banning any other peice of clothing, ranging from underwear to a birthday hat.
We have lost enough for the cause of societal approval or recognition and getting along. We can't lose anymore.
I'll give you some more advice, using force in your religion and setting yourself above all other religions (in terms of the laws you pass and the aggressive way you act, not your private opinion of Islam being true) will cause you to lose far more than you already have. If you wish to retain the right to be a Muslim, and to act as you think God wants you to, then you need to be more tolerant of those who do not wish to be or act as Muslims. Case in point, passing laws in Islamic majority countries which either punish women for not wearing hijab, or the de-facto practice of ignoring those who assault or rape women for not wearing hijab will simply cause more countries to do what France has done, and pass laws banning hijab. Which is not a good response, I will admit, but it is the response that most countries will eventually do. You will have to decide which you prefer, the right to choose for yourself to wear hijab, or the dubious pleasure of forcing others to wear it. It is possible for you to permanently retain the first, but if you insist on the second, you will lose both that, and the first, in the long run.
