If the American government were to make a law that violated Islamic rights, but upheld other religious rights, how would you react?
This thread is obviously for American Muslim guppies.
For example, lets say President Bush gets his wet dream to come true, and no form of any abortion is allowed. Well, with muslims, under certain conditions an immediate abortion is permissable. And please keep in mind that by Abortion, I’m also talking about the morning-after pill, which has been deemed permissable by various scholars.
This thread is obviously for American Muslim guppies.
For example, lets say President Bush gets his wet dream to come true, and no form of any abortion is allowed. Well, with muslims, under certain conditions an immediate abortion is permissable. And please keep in mind that by Abortion, I'm also talking about the morning-after pill, which has been deemed permissable by various scholars.
How would you react to that?
So wouldn't that also mean no more stem cell research?
That's another example, although I think the abortion thing hits more so at home.
I personally hate the fact that I would be limited in stem cell research. I used to do that stuff, but we were only working with mouse cells, and it honestly just sucked. You can only get so much useful information out of mouse models.
Where has separation of Church and State gone, I ask?
Religious intolerance is too strong of a word to be used in context of banning abortion. Usually that term is used when a specific religious group is targeted. So if tomorrow US laws bans circumcision, you can call it that because it will primarily be directed at Muslims or Jews.
The sunnah on religious intolerance is to not create disturbance (fitna) that is reflected in the Meccan life of AnHazoor (saw) and if life gets too hard to bare then migrate, which obviously is left as a personal choice. Not creating disturbance doesn't mean suck up, it means protest in a peaceful way. So, if tomorrow US government passes laws that you can't go to Hajj than you can influence your lawmakers to change it, write letters and op ads in papers, change public opinion by holding open house meetings etc. If all else fails and you think you consciously can't live in such a country than migrate, that is if you have the financial means to migrate and there are countries willing to let you in.
There are many laws in non Muslim countries that are different than Islamic laws, just look at the inheritance laws or laws of child custody or child support etc. This is not due to intolerance but due to a lack of Muslim social influence. Anyway my take on tolerating religious intolerance is very different than what most people here would consider appropriate. For example, I see people complaining that the Immigration guy asked him some extra questions when they returned from Pakistan and they think its akin to "Muslim Holocaust". They don't know jack about what discrimination is or how it feels. They haven't lived an Ahmadi's life in Pakistan, when you are not allowed to call Azan, hold meetings, even say your prayers in public, by constitution you can't hold public offices and so much so that stones are thrown at random in your mosques, oh I am sorry they are officially called places of worship.
Ahmadjee, the rationale behind banning any kind of abortions is that life begins at conception. The controversy over the morning-after pill is whether anyone has the right to inhibit a conception taking place. These are all religion-based issues, and the whole concept of diffrentiating between state and church is that church rationales not be used to support/pass a law.
The other examples you gave - like for inheritance, etc - were not decided by placing the bible on a table and thumbing through to look for verses that pertain to inheritance. So the parallel cannot be made.
It is not necessarily a Christian belief (never mind fundamentalist) that says life begins at conception or that abortion is murder. They are the most vocal and ardent protesters of abortion, but it is not strictly a Christian pov.
Anyway, even some of the hardest anti-abortionists agree that in cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, rape, incest, etc. an abortion is acceptable.
Not conservative Christians. They think that if you get raped, you are obligated to keep the baby.
Yes, some anti-abortionists do make exceptions. I would think myself to be in some category like that - I believe there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. With the morning after pill, one really need not wait until 3 or 4 months to figure out they want an abortion. And if you're married, and you get unexpectedly pregnant, then keep the baby.
But I'm talking about hardcore religious fundamentalists who want to pass laws based upon their religious interpretation of life, when clearly, many other religions feel otherwise, and many people couldn't give a flying rat's behind what the good old fashioned missing half-their teeth bible belt thumpers think about morality.
Why would someone give a flip about the abortion views of a quasi-Muslim hyper-feminist any more than they would a toothless bible thumper? Everyone has their views. Why should married women not have the same rights as promiscuous unmarried women?
problem according to my highly indoctrinated mind (i am trying to remove the effects but you never know till where the indoctrination has reached), is that you believe that a prophet called Mirza Ahmed came into this world. however the quotes of Mirza Ahmed are so funny that i cannot believe anyone would seriously take them. Is there something more than what meets the eye in case of Ahmedi's