More barbarity from the Israelis

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

Re: More barbarity from the Israelis

If its true. Then prove it.

I can disprove all your three points. Bali in Indonesia has open practice. It builds new temples and it allows conversions. How do I know this for a fact? Lived in Indonesia for 5 years. Spent every summer in Bali and Lombok.

22

U cant disapprove my points if some muslim dominated nation is doing something which is unislamic. Now U will say that since banks in Pakistan give and take interest to muslims so Interest is islamic. U are giving example of Bali in Indonasia,which is home for many western style clubs, that too must be allowed in Islam in ur books? I would advice U not to argue just for sake of arguing when U know that U are arguing on a wrong topic.

Its time for me to leave my office, so I cant post my proofs of my claims right now,but InshAllah Uwill get them tomorrow, and U will get what U need.

[QUOTE]
Posted by hareem: Yes.

[/QUOTE]

If U say this than U know very less about Islamic rulings Im afraid, and naturally so coz there is no true Islamic state today and U too seem to live in a kuffar country rather than a muslim one. But plz believe me that Islamic state wont ever allow any Church,synogogue and temple to be built on its land. InshAllah I will post U the references tomorrow.

[QUOTE]

As long as you don't spread lies and hatred like salman Rushdie, you're allowed to practice your faith

[/QUOTE]
.

LOL, the only shariyah abiding state in the world wont let non-muslims displaying their religion in public and U are busy spreading lies about Islamic states allowing non muslims to practise ur faith freely. Islamic state will kill a muslim if he embrace any other faith and leave islam. And U are talking about freedom of religion in Islamic state, its funny.

[QUOTE]

No. Even non-muslim states like Jewish and Christian states won't allow that.

[/QUOTE]

Jews dont preach their religion but christians do. What we see that muslims are free to preach their religion in christian dominated lands, but dont allow this freedom to christians in muslim dominated nations.

And hindus are most tolrant to let muslims and christians both preach and propogate their religion in hindu dominated nation thats India. I hope U will accept this ultimate truth.

[QUOTE]

Not true. It's a myth. Each human life is precious.

[/QUOTE]

Wait till tomorrow when a Sahih bukhari will prove that U are lying.

Peace to U all.

Pakistan launches Zarb e Azb
23

LOL

First of all, I'm not stating facts based on what present Muslim countries do or don't do. My replies are based on the teachings of Islamic Sacred Law.

So you're saying that there isn't any church or mandir left in a Muslim Land today???

Because I know what I'm talking about.

Those Christian diminated lands are "Secular" not "Christian". And secular countries allow you to preach and practice as long as you don't involve politics in it.

India is also a Secular Country and there's no particular religion is in command in India. Btw, Hindus are not "most tolerant nation" on earth because it has a dark history regarding religious tolerance. Everyone knows that.

And, yes. Bring it on.

24

Re: More barbarity from the Israelis

i do not like any debate on islam...frankly speaking...no one can convince a muslim mind...when you talk and condemn their practices...they for ask proofs from quran...or confuse you with interpretations...or they simply lie...

here is a question, let us see what they tell us...

what an islamic state should do if a non-muslim rejects (deliberately) to pay jazia tax???

25

What do you think the islamic state would do in that situation?

Can we move from Q&A session to a constructive conversation now?

26

In Malaysia it is illegal for a Muslim to convert out of Islam and if a Muslim marries a “kafir” the non-Muslim is forced to convert to Islam. Yeah, that is some great religious freedom, mullah style! The sad thing is Malaysia actually is better than most Muslim countries on religious freedom which shows how pathetic the state of religious freedom is in the Islamic world…

The other thing Muslims forget about Malaysia is that it is 40% non-Muslim. Moreover, the most productive citizens in the country tend to be “kafirs”, particularly the Chinese. This checks the government a bit on the religious issue. Look at what happens in nations which are 90% or more Muslim…

In Indonesia the government announced a “freeze” on Ahmadiyaa activity last year.

These are just a few examples regarding freedom of religion. Freedom of speech? You can be arrested for “insulting” Islam for example in Malaysia.

That is par for the course even though Muslims propagate freely in Christian and other countries. Even in countries where it is legal for all religious to have an open competition, such as Turkey, you face the threat of vigilante murder.

Umar, a “rightly guided one”, committed what today would be called ethnic cleansing when he ordered all “kafirs” to leave Arabia. What prompted this? There is a 1,300 year history of Muslims suppressing non-Muslims. Why? The rest of the world once had this same problem but it moved on. Why hasn’t the Islamic portion of the world?

No. The only time an Islamic state did this was Muhammad in Medina with the Constitution of Medina. That is it. As soon as the “rightly guided ones” took over they reduced non-Muslims to second-class status and this has been the record for the past 1,300 years.

No and no. There are some scholars who oppose the mafia-style policy regarding apostasy (“once you get in you can never leave!”) but the consensus is that apostasty should be illegal. The little debate that exists is on whether murder should be used to force apostates from exercising their freedom of conscience.

Propagation? Forget about it!

Hareem:

Unfettered right to build temples or far more restrictions than what Muslims face in building mosques?

LOL. This is a great example of sharia “freedom.” Rushdie is not allowed to express his religious views? Who determines what is a “lie”? Why not let the marketplace of ideas decide what is a lie? Hatred? Since when did Muslim countries care about the spread of hatred? :rotfl:

That is false. Basically every country allows it–except Muslim ones…In the US Saudi Arabia has an army of imams propagating Islam while Saudi Arabia does not allow “kafirs” to do the same in Saudi Arabia.

What about the majority Muslim areas of Indonesia? Of course Muslims are for freedom of religion wherever Muslims are a minority.
**
Excellent post, Raj!** :k:

I am not that well-versed on actual Islamic doctrine regarding these things so I look forward to seeing your post and whether they refute it. What I have looked at is the record of 1,300+ years and what Muslims have consistently done.

Show us some evidence. What we are saying is based on the record of wherever sharia has been implemented for 1,300+ years.

Says who? You live in England, no? England has an official church. Many of these countries do. Many of them are Christian in law and all of them are Christian in fact but they believe in religious freedom, just like nearly everyone in the world does except Muslims and Communists.

You are allowed to mix religion and politics in secular countries. You just cannot impose your religion on others.

India is overwhelmingly Hindu. What you are saying is that if a nation believes in religious freedom it is non-religious. This is disturbing. You have brushed aside Christian nations with official churches as “secular” so what does your Islamic religious state hold? What is implicit in your comments are that a religious based state cannot have religious freedom.

Often when it comes to discussion of the issues of religious freedom and the rights of minorities the problem is ignorance. Most Muslims actually believe, because of the warped “history” taught to them, that the Arab/Islamic Empire and the Ottoman Empire gave equal rights to minorities*. They don’t know that Umar, one of the five most revered figures in Islam, committed what would today be called ethnic cleansing by expelling all “kafirs” from Arabia.

*To be fair, they gave far more religious freedom than the rest of the world at their peaks. Muslims love to note this but fail to acknowledge the other side of this coin: the world evolved and increasingly offered more freedom and equality, culminating in religious freedom and equality while the Muslim world stood frozen in the laws of 1600.

An individual or a state that refuses to pay tribute to the Islamic state? Regarding the latter, Google “Ridda Wars.” Arabs had long history of paying tribute to powerful military leaders and then when the leader died the payments stopped. When Muhammad died they did what they always did and stopped paying his state. Abu Bakr then waged war on these tribes to force them to pay his government.

How about an individual? Prison. Here are some relevant hadith and more.

Click the links for the original sources Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . These are straight from hadith and other Islamic sources so they cannot be dismissed as “kuffar” lies. What response is there to this? This is what makes so many people around the world nervous for no one wants to be a “dhimmi.”

ٹائم پاس ماہ جون - Time Pass June 2014 - الوقت ممر يونيو
27

And according to you people should be allowed to mock and insult Islam and other Religions? Do you have any shame?

It wasn’t the “kafirs” who were kicked out from Arabia, it was Jews. And there was a reason behind this. Jews promised to help Muslims in the final war but they betrayed them and as a punishment they were given the exile.

In Secular world the punishment for this crime is death. How would you justify that?

This is actually a white lie. Muslims ruled over Hindustan for more than 1000 years and majority remained hindu and practised their religion freely.

Punishment for apostasy is only valid when an apostate becomes a threat to muslim society and spreads fitnah.

If that’s true there might be some reasons for it, Reason.

Since the birth of first muslim. Rushdie did not expressed any religious views in his fiction books rather he insulted the Religious personalities. You don’t agree with terrorists expressing their views openly and writing books about it, or do you?

What about the majority Muslim areas of Indonesia? Of course Muslims are for freedom of religion wherever Muslims are a minority.

Excellent post, Raj! :k:

I am not that well-versed on actual Islamic doctrine regarding these things so I look forward to seeing your post and whether they refute it. What I have looked at is the record of 1,300+ years and what Muslims have consistently done.

Show us some evidence. What we are saying is based on the record of wherever sharia has been implemented for 1,300+ years.

Says who? You live in England, no? England has an official church. Many of these countries do. Many of them are Christian in law and all of them are Christian in fact but they believe in religious freedom, just like nearly everyone in the world does except Muslims and Communists.
[/QUOTE]

No they don’t have Christian laws in country. You should’ve known this.

And so in Islam.

No I didn’t say that.

I’ve already answered this false accusation of yours.

What do you know about the modern world? Not so long ago, Africans who came to US were forced to change their surnames. On the contrary, it is illegal to use any other name besides your father’s name as your last name in Islam.

Is that the price for your so called freedom? By mutilating your personality and identification?

It was those murtid people who started the war, first they refused to pay the (Zakat) and when Abu Bakr(ra) went to talk to them they wanted a fight instead of talks.

Wiki is the last website that a muslim would use to understand Shariah.

Here you go, this is from reliable sources.

Even as Islam spread beyond the borders of Arabia into the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires (Syria and Persia), non-Muslims were accorded certain rights. If they accepted the authority of the new Islamic government, then treaties were concluded and the non-Muslims paid a special tax, called a jizya. The options were not convert, die, or pay the tax. Instead, non-Muslims were allowed to practice their own religions and maintain their own institutions. In lieu of converting to Islam, they paid the jizya, or poll tax. This tax exempted them from military service and gave them special status under the Islamic system. Many non-Muslims actually welcomed Muslim rule, knowing that they had certain rights under the new system. In fact, some Muslim rulers actually discouraged conversion, because they preferred collecting the poll tax. This tribute system was very compatible with the political economy of the premodern world.
Islam could not have had the huge appeal it did if Muslims’ first response was to kill “infidels.” Within one hundred years of the Prophet’s death, Islam had spread from Spain in the West to China in the East. Islam’s initial spread was through political-military means. However, Muslim rulers usually insured that local populations could practice their own religions and have their own institutions, provided they accepted Muslim rule and paid their taxes. Muslims ruled places like the Indian subcontinent for centuries and did not forcibly convert the population. In fact, India remained majority Hindu under Muslim rule.
The Ottomans created a multi-confessional, multi-ethnic millet system where Muslims, Christian, and Jews lived together in peace. In fact, the Ottomans’ elite military corp, the Janissaries, were predominantly Christian.
(sunnipath)

28

[QUOTE]
And according to you people should be allowed to mock and insult Islam and other Religions?
[/QUOTE]
Sure, it is called freedom of speech. Every other religion can handle criticism. Why can't Islam? Why are Muslims so insecure about what they call the "one true religion"?

Since when did Islamists care about criticizing religions? They attack every other religion in the world all the time. Only when Islam is criticized do they whine.

[QUOTE]
It wasn't the "kafirs" who were kicked out from Arabia, it was Jews. And there was a reason behind this. Jews promised to help Muslims in the final war but they betrayed them and as a punishment they were given the exile.
[/QUOTE]
You are talking about Muhammad, I am talking about Umar. Where do you think Saudi Arabia got the sharia regulation that all Saudi citizens have to be Muslim?

In secular laws the penalty for treason varies, although it is always harsh. One thing is for sure, collective punishment is not done in secular laws. If there is a case of Chinese espionage in America every Chinese-American will not be expelled from the country. Only the person committing the crime will be punished.

[QUOTE]
Muslims ruled over Hindustan for more than 1000 years and majority remained hindu and practised their religion freely.
[/QUOTE]
That is the one example you can find and even then the record is not clear (Aurangzeb). What about the Ottomans, Arabs, and Persian empires? How about wherever shariah is in place today?

[QUOTE]
Punishment for apostasy is only valid when an apostate becomes a threat to muslim society and spreads fitnah.
[/QUOTE]
Once again Islamists stand against freedom of speech! Why again so much paranoia of religious criticism? What are you afraid of? You have the ultimate truth, no? Yet you act as if you have a delicate house of cards.

You are incorrect. Under shariah apostasy itself is punishable by murder. Name one shariah state which allows apostasy.

[QUOTE]
If that's true there might be some reasons for it, Reason.
[/QUOTE]
Religious tyranny and fear of ideas and open religious competition.

[QUOTE]
Rushdie did not expressed any religious views in his fiction books rather he insulted the Religious personalities.
[/QUOTE]
So what? Moses killed infants. Am I supposed to respect someone like that?

[QUOTE]
You don't agree with terrorists expressing their views openly and writing books about it, or do you?
[/QUOTE]
They can write whatever they want. It is actually good that Communists, Islamists, and Fascists write books and express their views openly for we can know what the enemy believes and what we are fighting against. One problem in Pakistan is many in Pakistan are pro-Taliban and pro-terrorist because they are unaware what jihadists believe. For instance, many Pakistanis believe the terrorism problem would vanish if the US withdrew from Afghanistan. This is ridiculous. Mehsud himself has said that "after the US is defeated" they will attack the US and UK until these countries either: 1) convert to Islam under duress 2) pay them a jizya bribe. Where did they get this idea of fighting until "kafirs" convert or pay bribes of subservience to protect them from further violence?

[QUOTE]
No they don't have Christian laws in country. You should've known this.
[/QUOTE]
England is a Christian country (official church: the Anglican Church). You should have done research before immigrating to what you Islamists refer to Dhar-al-Harb ("the House of War." I wonder why they call non-Muslim lands that?). Its laws are made by legislators, who are almost all Christian but there are no "Christian laws' per se.

[QUOTE]
And so in Islam.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong. Look at the lands of sharia. For instance, in Swat girls' schools were burned down when Sharia was implemented there. This is an imposition of religion on others.

[QUOTE]
Is that the price for your so called freedom?
[/QUOTE]
There was little freedom in the American colonies of the 1600's. Most countries evolve over time, although I would not expect you to recognize that.

[QUOTE]
It was those murtid people who started the war, first they refused to pay the (Zakat) and when Abu Bakr(ra) went to talk to them they wanted a fight instead of talks.

[/QUOTE]
They refused to pay tribute (Jizaya) to Abu Bakr. This is what they had done for centuries. When a military leader died the payments to his tribe stopped. Abu Bakr didn't accept this, largely because his government needed the revenue.

[QUOTE]
Wiki is the last website that a muslim would use to understand Shariah.
[/QUOTE]
You apparently don't know how Wiki works. There are links that you can click on for the original sources. The hadith quoted are well-known. Do you deny their existence??!

Your quoted article has little difference with the Wikipedia article.

Nowhere in the article does it mention equal rights. There is a reason for it: the dhimmis were given second-class citizenship (and some* dhimmis* were given less rights than other "kafirs").

[QUOTE]
Many non-Muslims actually welcomed Muslim rule, knowing that they had certain rights under the new system
[/QUOTE]
This is the case for any conquerors. There are always people who welcome the new rules because they disliked the old ones (even Hitler's army was welcomed by Ukranians). Does this mean anything?

[QUOTE]
Islam could not have had the huge appeal it did if Muslims' first response was to kill "infidels."** Within one hundred years of the Prophet's death, Islam had spread from Spain in the West to China in the East.** Islam's initial spread was through political-military means.
[/QUOTE]

Read that statement and think. How? What was the common denominator between those areas?

More importantly, why did a jihad occur from India to France? What prompted it? As any student of history knows, only Islam did this among major religions. Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism did not fight a series of war to expand. What made Islam different?

[QUOTE]
The Ottomans created a multi-confessional, multi-ethnic millet system where Muslims, Christian, and Jews lived together in peace.
[/QUOTE]
Where the "kafirs" were given inferior status.

[QUOTE]
the Ottomans' elite military corp, the Janissaries, were predominantly Christian.
[/QUOTE]
This is a perfect example of the whitewashing done by Muslim historiography of the Ottoman and Islamic empires. First, they were not Christian. They were forced to convert to Islam because no non-Muslim was allowed to serve in the Ottoman military, even though it had many Christian and Jewish subjects. They originally were Christian, though. Why? Because they were taken as slaves from conquered Christian lands.

This is what I referred to earlier. There is no critical thinking, no critical examination of Islamic history so myths continue and fundamental problems are not corrected. This is a big reason why reform has not occurred and the Islamic world has stood still.

Why are you, an evident Islamist, living in a "kuffar" land with "kuffar" laws btw? Why are you not in shariah utopias?

29

I object...this myth has misguided muslim gentry from the day one. Did not muslim rulres in India for their 600 years ruling try their best to convert India into an Islamic state...did not they bring down temples all over India (figure is 30000)?

The fact is that Islam could find an easy ground whereever civilization was in dark period (and not much has changed in those countries since then)...and in India, a country civilized for centuries..Islam failed.

30

Yes I can. I actually just did. Indonesia a Muslim state allows freedom of religion, freedom of coversion and freedom to build your own temple. Facts of reality.

**You said that Islam demands muslims states to limit the religious/political rights of non-muslims.

Prove it.**

Reason such a hypocrite. The Holocaust denial laws are in the same vein in the Malaysian laws on Islam. You have already shown your support for the European laws and thus you have shown your support for Malaysian ones.

Well done being a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Uthiye na
31

No, Islam has not failed in India though there's still ignorance in there but that's because the old ways of jahliya that people don't wanna leave.

Btw last time I checked it was radical Hindus who wanted to destroy a mosque and a church in India.

32

This is a typical Islamist tactic. They will flat out utter falsehoods to sugar coat their ideology when not in power to increase its appeal/reduce opposition to it. Look at the record and what they do wherever and whenever they come to power.

Indonesia does not allow freedom of religion or freedom of conversion or freedom to build religious places.

[QUOTE]
Reason such a hypocrite. The Holocaust denial laws are in the same vein in the Malaysian laws on Islam.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong. The Holocaust laws, which are in place in some Western countries, carry with them a fine. Malaysian laws entail forced conversions. Freedom of religious belief is far more important than the right to express an opinion regarding a historical event.

[QUOTE]
You have already shown your support for the European laws and thus you have shown your support for Malaysian ones
[/QUOTE]
What kind of "logic" is that? Since I generally support European laws that means I support all European laws? While I abhor Holocaust deniers, I don't support laws restricting their free speech and no such laws exist in my country (I don't live in Europe).

It is interesting you focused on Holocaust denial. There are laws in some of the same countries that are applied to criticism of Muslims (i.e. Bridgette Bardot in France). Let me guess: you support those laws, though?

[QUOTE]
slam has not failed in India though there's still ignorance in there but that's because the old ways of jahliya that people don't wanna leave.
[/QUOTE]

This is a very revealing comment. If someone refuses to become Muslim they are "ignorant." This implies that eventually, when "enlightened", the entire world will become Muslim. How do Islamists propose accomplishing this? Oh yeah...

ٹائم پاس ماہ جون - Time Pass June 2014 - الوقت ممر يونيو
33

Re: More barbarity from the Israelis

Reason back your comment up, that Indonesia does not allow freedom of religion?

And this is my 3 point shot at the buzzer. US state department report on the freedom of religion in Indoneisa

Indonesia

And since you like wikipedia (which is infact a horrble source) here is another link:
Freedom of religion in Indonesia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly read your own post. You linked the freedom of speech with denouncing Islam and not a freedom of religion isue. The Holocaust denial is a freedom of speech issue. If you wish to continue this discussion please be logical.

ٹائم پاس ماہ جون - Time Pass June 2014 - الوقت ممر يونيو
34

Criticism is fine. But I'm talking about insults and mocking here which is the way of immature and ignorant people.

Again, we don't insult any Prophets or mock any Scriptures.

Your knowledge about Islamic history is poor, sorry to say that but next time you wanna talk about it, provide your proof.

The agreement was between Muslims and that Jewish tribe who not only betrayed us but also tried to kill muslim women and children.

Talking about the Secular Laws, what did you guys do to Saddam and his family in Iraq? You not only killed his sons without any trial but also humiliated him in front of the whole world. And the treatment of the Iraqi citizens is also in question.

Yeah what about them?

You'd do the same if someone mocks your parents.

Shariah is not a simpleton's law, each case is handled differently according to the severity of crime.

Where did you get this from?

Oh no Sir, it is only the people who write against Muslims and Islam have the freedom to do so openly and without any fear.

2 years ago, they put a schoolgirl in prison for writing in praise of Mujahids in UK.

The Anglican Church has nothing to do with English Law and that makes it Secular. Can't you get this simple thing?

I've done my research. I think someone else is in need of it.

Why would someone refer to the West as "house of war" when there's no war going on? I think you watch too much Fox News.

There was no Shariah in Swat though some tribals tried to use this title for their laws.

It wasn't Jizya. It was Zakah that they refused to pay and on top attacked civilians.

I know how wiki works but you surely don't know how Shariah works. You don't pick 2 or 3 ahadith to give out rulings, there are chapters of ahadith on each subject so picking out one hadith from here and there to give rulings is not the way of Scholras and knowledgeable people.

And besides the knowledge of Quran, its language, knowledge of hadith and other sciences you have to have the knowledge of Islamic History and permission from the Scholars before you decide to take out a ruling.

What you've done is the way false Salafis do.

First of all I don't know what is an "Islamist". And Second of all, what I do or where I live is none of your buisness. And I'm not sure what do you mean by "kuffar land"?

Also, it is a misconception that a place with Shariah is Utopia, though the sacred laws are the best but it doesn't mean that they will turn this world into Utopia.

But it will definitely make this world a better place to live.

35

I oppose the restriction on free speech you mentioned and I oppose restrictions on freedom of religion. What is inconsistent about that?

There is a huge difference between a fine for a specific position on a historical event and forced conversion. How can you not recognize this?

Read your own links.

[QUOTE]
The Constitution provides for "all persons the right to worship according to his or her own religion or belief" and states that "the nation is based upon belief in one supreme God." The Government** generally** respects freedom of religion; however, restrictions continued to exist on some types of religious activity and on unrecognized religions. In addition security forces occasionally tolerated discrimination against and abuse of religious groups by private actors, and the Government at times failed to punish perpetrators.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
here was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom during the period covered by this report. Most of the population enjoyed a high degree of religious freedom. However, because the Government recognizes only five major religions, persons of non-recognized faiths frequently experienced official discrimination, often in the context of civil registration of marriages and births or the issuance of identity cards.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
The Government continued to restrict the construction and expansion of houses of worship. It also maintained a ban on the use of private homes for worship unless the local community approved and a regional office of the Ministry of Religious Affairs provided a license. National law requires that a community agree on the construction of any new house of worship before it is built. Some Protestants complained about the difficulty of obtaining community approval and alleged that in some areas, even when the Muslim community approved a new church, outside activists presented a long list of signatures opposed to the project. In the North Sumatra community of Perbangunan, in Deli Serdang

Regency, a Lutheran group bought land in 2003 for a new church, but Islamic militants from outside the area destroyed the partially built church. At the end of the period covered by this report, the congregation had not rebuilt the church.

Many members of minority faiths complained that the Government made it harder for them than for Muslims to build a house of worship. Christian groups complained that t*he Government closed at least three Jakarta churches* unfairly during the period covered by this report. On October 3, 2004, a local Muslim community group, the Karang Tengah Islam Community Foundation (KTICF), with help from members of the Islam Defenders Front (FPI), erected a 2-meter high and 5-meter wide wall that blocked access to Sang Timur Catholic School. The predominantly Muslim local community objected to the school's operation because a Catholic parish routinely held religious ceremonies in the school gymnasium in violation of its operating permit. Following protest against the wall and extensive national publicity, local government workers knocked it down on October 25, 2004, just hours before the arrival of former Indonesian President and Islamic leader Abdurrahman Wahid. Wahid had called for the wall's removal and sought to mediate an end to the dispute.

Muslims routinely reported difficulties in establishing mosques in Muslim-minority areas of Papua, North Sulawesi, and elsewhere.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
he civil registration system continued to restrict religious freedom of persons who did not belong to the five officially recognized faiths. Many animists, Baha'is, Confucians, and members of other minority faiths found it impossible to register their marriages or children's births because the Government did not recognize their religion. For example, the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas-HAM) investigated cases in Batam where the registration office refused to register the marriages of Confucian couples. Neither the registration office nor the Mayor has provided Komnas-Ham with an explanation for the refusals.** Couples prevented from registering their marriage or the birth of their child in accordance with their faiths must either convert to one of the five recognized faiths or misrepresent themselves as belonging to one of the five. Those who choose not to register their marriages or births risk future difficulties. For example, many children without a birth certificate cannot enroll in school or may not qualify for scholarships. Individuals without birth certificates will not qualify for government jobs. **

The Government requires all adult citizens to carry a National Identity Card (KTP), which identifies, among other things, the holder's religion. Members of faiths not recognized by the Government generally cannot obtain KTPs unless they incorrectly identify themselves as a member of a recognized religion. During the period covered by this report, some Civil Registry officials rejected applications submitted by members of unrecognized faiths, while others accepted applications but issued KTPs that inaccurately reflected the applicants' religion. Some animists ended up receiving KTPs that list their religion as Islam. Some Confucians ended up with Buddhist KTPs. Even some Protestants and Catholics ended up receiving KTPs listing them as Muslims. **It appears that Civil Registry staff used Islam as the "default" category for many members of unrecognized faiths. **Some citizens without a KTP had difficulty finding work. Several nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and religious advocacy groups urged the Government to delete the religion category from KTPs.

Men and women of different religions faced serious obstacles to marrying and officially registering their marriages. Such couples had great difficulty finding a religious official willing to perform an interfaith marriage ceremony, and a religious ceremony is required before a marriage can be registered. As a result, some persons converted, sometimes superficially, in order to marry. Others traveled overseas, where they wed and then registered the marriage at an Indonesian Embassy. In addition, despite being among the officially recognized faiths, Hindus stated that they frequently had to travel long distances to have their marriages registered, because in many rural areas the local government could not or would not perform the registration.
[/QUOTE]

There is more at your own links!

ٹائم پاس ماہ جون - Time Pass June 2014 - الوقت ممر يونيو
36

How do you distinguish between the two? Every other religion can handle insults. Why can’t Islam?

The Ahamidya prophet is insulted all the time–even by the government and laws of Pakistan!

What you are saying is ridiculous. Islamists routinely denigrate other religions yet you pretend this is not the case. Who do you think you are fooling?

Educate yourself. Where do you think the government of Saudi Arabia got the shariah provision banning non-Muslim citizens? Pick your source!

umar expulsion - Google Search

So that justifies punishing or killing the entire tribe? Pakistan contributed to an attack on India in Mumbai. Does this justify Pakistan nuclear bombing all of Pakistan?

Saddam was hanged for murder. That is consistent with shariah, no?

They did not give equal rights to religious minorities.

You are comparing mocking a parent to criticism of a religion? Moreover, what is “do the same”? You would murder someone for criticizing a parent?

It is legal to mock people’s parents in nations with free speech and I believe shariah also does not ban it.

Name *one *instance of a state with shariah law allowing apostasy from Islam. Thanks in advance.

Regarding Moses, here is Thomas Paine’s criticism of Moses based on the Bible (and presumably the Koran says the same thing since the old stories are the same in the two books):

Wrong. You can get Islamist books in the US and also Hitler’s book is available in every bookstore of one of the two national bookstore chains.

In the UK it is illegal to support terrorism. What are the details?

Islamist books are legal in the UK. There are Islamist organizations based in the UK and Islamist preachers.

You are confusing laws with society. England is a Christian society and country with secular laws.

Simple: a war is planned for the future. This division was created about 1,100 years ago. The idea is the “House of War”–all non-Muslim lands–would eventually be conquered by Muslims via jihad. This is the objective of Islamists to this day.

What was it? What were the sources of their laws?

Semantics. They were no longer Muslim so why would they have to pay zakat? They were forced to convert back to Islam via military force and this precedent is the reason for the Islamic stance on apostasy for the next 1,300+ years.

Ok. Then show us what the “real” purpose of jizya is? It has existed for 1,400 years. Why?

A simple generic test: do you want to replace the laws of the UK with shariah?

37

Re: More barbarity from the Israelis

He shoots he scores. Thank you for pointing out that Indonesia does respect the right to freedom. Since you have been proven wrong we can go on to the next one.

Right to conversion. By your own quotes you have shown that Indonesia allows people to convert.

Shall we move on to the third one? Right to build temples or are you tired of being proven wrong?

ٹائم پاس ماہ جون - Time Pass June 2014 - الوقت ممر يونيو
38

[QUOTE]
Thank you for pointing out that Indonesia does respect the right to freedom.
[/QUOTE]

Under the Islamist version of "freedom" perhaps but not based on the definition of freedom the rest of the world uses.

[QUOTE]
Right to build temples or are you tired of being proven wrong?

[/QUOTE]

"Right" is different from practice. Moreover, there is no "right" for Ahmadiyas as there is a freeze on their activity.

Why not comment on this in your religiously"free" Indonesia:

[QUOTE]
The civil registration system continued to restrict religious freedom of persons who did not belong to the five officially recognized faiths. Many animists, Baha'is, Confucians, and members of other minority faiths found it impossible to register their marriages or children's births because the Government did not recognize their religion. For example, the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas-HAM) investigated cases in Batam where the registration office refused to register the marriages of Confucian couples. Neither the registration office nor the Mayor has provided Komnas-Ham with an explanation for the refusals.** Couples prevented from registering their marriage or the birth of their child in accordance with their faiths must either convert to one of the five recognized faiths or misrepresent themselves as belonging to one of the five. Those who choose not to register their marriages or births risk future difficulties. For example, many children without a birth certificate cannot enroll in school or may not qualify for scholarships. Individuals without birth certificates will not qualify for government jobs. **
[/QUOTE]

Why does Indonesia recognize only five religions? Why not recognize all religions? After all, they are all equal in Indonesia, right?

ٹائم پاس ماہ جون - Time Pass June 2014 - الوقت ممر يونيو
39

That’s not the point. There shouldn’t be any insult based on false accusations in the first place.

I don’t blame them because Mirza Ghulam Ahmed in his own books abuse Prophets and Muslims.

Not true. We’re not allowed to do that.

Umar also ordered the expulsion of the Christian and Jewish communities of Najran and Khaybar allowing them to reside in Syria or Iraq. He issued orders that these Christians and Jews should be treated well and allotted them the equivalent land in their new settlements.

And what’s wrong in that?

Nobody killed the tribe. They were only exiled because of the treason and attempt for mudering women and children. Get this in your head.

And what about the humiliation and murder of his sons?

Yes they did.

We love and respect the Prophet(SAW) more than our parents. And you should also even if you’re not muslim.

Would you believe me if I tell you?

No, Quran doesn’t say the same about Moses(AS) and we don’t believe that he killed infants. Thanks

And?

So where’s the “freedom” then? Remember it is you who’s asking for ultimate freedom not I.

Because Islam is the second biggest religion here and English Law also allow Muslims to practice their religion. What the big deal?

Yeah and?

I don’t agree with that because this concept is not Islamic. And Islam didn’t spread this way in the past.

Jirga and according to their own traditions.

I told you not to make up things on your own.

I’ve already answered this in previous posts. Go back and read.

The English lack nothing to make them sound Mussulmans, and need only stretch out a finger to become one with the Turks in outward appearance, in religious observance and in their whole character.? (The Fugger Letters.)

40

What is this Islamist version? Show me a legal document.

[quote]
"Right" is different from practice. Moreover, there is no "right" for Ahmadiyas as there is a freeze on their activity.
[/quote]

This has nothing to do with Indonesia. Stick to the topic.

[quote]

Why not comment on this in your religiously"free" Indonesia:
Why does Indonesia recognize only five religions? Why not recognize all religions? After all, they are all equal in Indonesia, right?
[/QUOTE]

Why doesn't the US recognize the right to have more than one wife as dictated by local "crazy christain" religions?