[QUOTE]
Iran is a bit of an anomaly when it comes to your list. Iran is a bit more tolerant of religious minorities relatively speaking, compared to Pakistan
[/QUOTE]
Iran outlaws conversion out of Islam. The penalty? Death. Iran has used death squads in the past to hunt down people who changed their religion. On apostasy it is barbaric, although you are correct that in general it is more tolerant of minorities than Pakistan--but that is more a reflection on the poor state of religious minorities in Pakistan than of anything positive on Iran.
[QUOTE]
If you have ever talked to a convert almost always the first thing they say is they were not brought up in a religious home that means they were never educated about their religion hence they decided to venture on to find the "true" religion.
[/QUOTE]
That is a myth. I was brought up in a religious (Pakistani Muslim) home, I was taken to the local mosque every week and I am not an adherent to any religion today. The reason is simple: I live in a free country (US), thought for myself and elected to not adhere to a particular religion.
[QUOTE]
No offence but do you even know what you are talking about? There are thousands of non Muslims that live in Saudi Arabia who freely practice their religion & have equal job opportunities same as Muslims do.
[/QUOTE]
Yes I do. First, as in the other nations I mentioned, "apostasy" is illegal and is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. This is what you call "free practice" of religion? Moreover, in Saudi Arabia every citizen is required to be Muslim. Look up Saudi Arabia's religious demographics. This is why Saudi Arabia reports itself as "100%" Muslim. This is a joke but this is their law. Here is the provision relating to this in Saudi Arabia's constitution:
[QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 9
The family is the kernel of Saudi society, and it*s members shall be brought up on the basis of the Islamic faith*, and loyalty and obedience to God, His Messenger, and to guardians; respect for
and implementation of the law, and love of and pride in the homeland and its glorious history as the Islamic faith stipulates.
[/QUOTE]
I would provide a link but I am too new to post links. Just Google "Saudi Arabia constitution."
Proselytizing by non-Muslims--including Shias--is illegal in Saudi Arabia. This shows the rank hypocrisy of Saudi Arabia: it spends millions of dollars on proselytizing overseas, such as in American prisons, yet does not permit it within its own borders.
How about public practice of religions other than Islam? You guessed it: illegal in Saudi Arabia.
Shia are not permitted equal opportunities yet you claim non-Muslims are given equal opportunities in Saudi Arabia? How can you have an equal opportunity for a job when you are in prison for being a non-Muslim under Saudi law????
In the Saudi embassy in Washington guess how many Shia have served? Yes: 0. 0--ever. How can this be when they are 15% of the population? How about Shia ministers, governors, and mayors?
While Christians, Hindus, and others are allowed to visit Saudi Arabia on business and for tourist purposes (except Mecca and Medina), it is completely illegal for any Jews to enter Saudi borders. Some tolerance!
You are confusing foreign enclaves of temporary visitors with the laws Saudi Arabia imposes upon its citizens. It allows some leeway to, say, British oil workers--but that is because it has to or else foreigners it needs to extract its oil would stop coming. It isn't because of the kindess of its heart.
[QUOTE]
At the same time I have seen churches & temples in numerous Muslim countries
[/QUOTE]
How many in Saudi Arabia? Allowing churches and temples does not equal religious equality. Are there restrictions on the practice of religion? Are there separate standards for what the majority religion can do and what minority religions can do? Are minorities given equal legal rights?
No country is perfect but you act as if problems of religious discrimination by individuals in, say, Denmark, is on par with state discrimination by Iran or Saudi Arabia (ignoring for a moment the fact that individual discrimination is far greater in nations with official state discrimination than in nations with legal tolerance).
[QUOTE]
We can't just label any religion or country good or bad based on what some uneducated lunatics decide to do.
[/QUOTE]
The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt are uneducated??? The president of Iran has a doctorate degree.
[QUOTE]
If Islam was so intolerant to other religions then we wouldn't see cases where Prophet (peace be upon him) himself gave gifts to non Muslims or even tended to a non Muslim sick person.
[/QUOTE]
That was 1,400 years ago and relating to a tiny state. You are correct that the constitution of Media provided for equal rights for non-Muslims. However, it is clear that this was quickly warped after his death and the Arab empire, the Muslim era Persian empires, and the Ottoman (Turkish) empire did not provide equal rights (although the Moguls did). For example, the Ottomans did not grant equal rights until the late 19th century. If they had provided equal rights during the previous 600 years why was there a need for the Ottoman ruler to issue a decree declaring equal rights for religious minorities?
In order to advance the cause of equal rights for non-Muslims and return Islam to its state vis-a-vis non-Muslims that it originally was in Muslims today have to accept the realities of intolerence in the Muslim world for the past 1,000+ years. How can you cure a disease you fail to diagnose? With all due respect, your post is emblematic of the problem. Here we have the worst offender on the globe in terms of religious intolerence and you are defending it as a haven of religious pluralism. If you cannot recognize the worst form of intolerence how can you recognize any other instance of religious intolerence? The other thing people need to do is accept the record of the major Islamic empires. They are glorified today by the average Muslim and part of the glorification is a myth that they gave equal rights to minorities. The Moguls did but the Arabs, Ottomans, and Persians did not. This is especially important since the two most influential Islamic empires are the original Arab one and the Ottoman empire.
To be fair--as many Muslim commentators and historians love to point out--the Ottomans, Arabs, and Persians gave greater rights to their religious minorities than the Europeans did to theirs. This is why when the Jews were expelled from Spain (along with Muslims) in the late 15th century the Ottomans welcomed the Jews, not just the Muslims, with open arms. So what went wrong? Why is the Islamic world generally intolerant (with exceptions such as Turkey and Tunisia) of religious minorities today? What happened, and this is what many Muslim commentators and historians ignore or fail to grasp, is the world changed. The concept of "equal rights" was developed and adopted in the West and subsequently spread to many other countries, most notably Latin America. The Islamic world remained frozen, largely thanks to sharia which is designed to be static, not dynamic and changing with the times (it is no coincidence that the least tolerant Islamic countries all have sharia law). What was tolerant in 870 and 1570 became backwards and intolerent in 1970.
[QUOTE]
Most Muslim parents would not accept this kind of behavior.
[/QUOTE]
Which is wrong. People should be free to choose their friends *and *their religion. Why must the thoughts, behaviors, beliefs of people be regulated by external forces?