Forced secularization being used by radical Muslims to bring about Sharia law., page 2

reply to post by lifeissacred

---

THANK YOU! I keep tryna tell people taqiyya is a SHI'A concept.

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

---

I'm sorry, but Muslim countries don't exist? What is Iran? What is Saudi Arabia? What is Pakistan?

What do you call a country that would put me to death for depicting or blaspheming the prophet of Islam?

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

---

You let the non-Muslims live only if they agree to pay jizya tribute (blackmail), act as slaves on the lowest rung of society, lick the boots of Muslims, and allow the Muslims to kidnap their bravest, strongest Christian sons, who were forcibly circumcized, raped and trained as janissaries in the Ottoman Empire.

Deception and global conquest are the very basis of Islam, which is why it has often allied itself with both fascists and communists in the past, and even today. They all have the same evil totalitarian goals to crush humanity under their jackboots, just like the Nazis.

reply to post by Tib50

---

Apparently you ignored the post by an actual Maltese person. Me. Look, it even got a lot of stars.

This was something that was proposed by a Catholic and supported by Catholics in a country that is mostly Catholics and has more atheists than Muslims. Hell, we've even had atheist prime ministers here...granted, neither of them did a good job and one skirted close to being a dictator, but I'm just saying.

Sure, we have some Muslims, but most of them aren't really all that good at being Muslims. Libyans who come up here and go out and get wasted...okay, not so much right now. Turks that...run kebab houses. Seriously, we have a much higher population of atheists than Muslims, so I guess that godless communism should be a greater concern for the Maltese.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

I call it a country full of idiots. Nowhere in the revelation does it say that "blasphemy" is a crime punishable by death. The problem is, a certain sect of muslims try to fit islam into a political agenda when most of what is prescribed to a muslim is for spiritual gain. I call Iran a country full of Shi'a muslims, and Jews as well. A TRUE muslim country would embody and impliment the beauty of the revelation.

But I guess to you I'm just sitting over here dreaming of world domination.

If you wanna know about true islam, go to something BY muslims, jihadwatch, and that crap people cite on here won't cut it.

reply to post by Tib50

---

You mean sort of like how the Christians acted in the Middle Ages?

Why are you acting surprised that a religion which is 700 years younger than Christianity is acting similar to how Christianity acted 700 years ago?

Hell, I'm not even saying that it is, as there are quite a few moderate, apathetic, and downright ignorant Muslims out there. All I'm saying is that, even if it were true, how does that make it any different from Christianity prior to it being dragged kicking and screaming by secular rationalism and empiricism from the dark ages?

reply to post by Tib50

---

And you studied islam for 19 years? I doubt it, but guess what, I did. You're gonna look hella stupid one day when the only people kicking in your door yelling "SUBMIT" is your own TOTALITARIAN government.

I'll just continue to do what I've been doing. Minding my business trying to raise my kids.

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

---

..thanks for straw manning me. I've actually bothered to read the Qu'ran. Though I guess the Hadith is no longer considered an Islamic text to Muslims...huh.

I think Islam is...well..about as bad as Christianity on the face of it. It just hasn't had 700+ years of scientific and cultural advances in the nations where it is the majority religion. Granted, part of this might be the fault of Islam, but no more than the west's stagnation was due to Christianity.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

A lot of muslims have largely abandoned hadith due to it's corruptability. The quran was passed down in both written and unwritten forms, and though certain translations may have "simplified" or "sensationalized" the arabic, hadith is like the telephone game. I'm assuming you've read some: so and so, told so and so, told so and so, told so and so, told so and so, who SAID he HEARD the Prophet say..... That CAN'T be good.

And sorry if you feel like I was attacking you in the last post. Tib50 irritated me to wits end.

reply to post by lifeissacred

---

*applause*

excellent post

Originally posted by Aeons
How does it qualify as "forced" secularization when 70% of the people voted for it?

Ah yes, the old democratic "the majority can outlaw the minority" argument.

Just because a slim majority of a people vote for some policy which will be imposed upon all the people in a country does not make it right.


BTW, the vote was a lot closer than the super majority you seem to think approved this.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Forced secularization? 54% of the country voted in favor of divorce with a 72% voter turnout (actually a bit low by our standards).

A slim 4% majority has been able to force a change in the whole culture of this country. Soon the island nation will find itself overrun with sleazy divorce lawyers looking for reasons to break up marriages, even those of the people who voted against this.

It makes me wonder why people see divorce as such a good thing? Many studies have shown that the children of divorce are more prone to emotional problems and delinquency. I have read studies that show that people find that divorce does not bring them the happiness they had hoped for and puts financial burdens on both parties of the divorce. With divorce now becoming legal, people will be more likely to just walk away from their problems rather than try to work things out, the children be damned.

reply to post by FortAnthem

---

Just because a slim majority of a people vote for some policy which will be imposed upon all the people in a country does not make it right.

It was the old policy of forbidding divorce that was imposed upon all people. The new policy allows choice to divorce or not. There is no imposing in this case.

While I am not so big fan of dictatorship of majority (democracy), in this case the result is good, altough by a rather slim majority.

reply to post by FortAnthem

---

A slim 4% majority has been able to force a change in the whole culture of this country. Soon the island nation will find itself overrun with sleazy divorce lawyers looking for reasons to break up marriages, even those of the people who voted against this.

lol We had divorce legal since god knows what, and divorce lawyer infestation is at pretty low levels. Do you really think divorce lawyers would suddenly go from home to home asking couples "are you really satisfied with your marriage? Try new divorce procedure! Now 25% cheaper!" or what?

A law which forces people into such unbreakable commitment is against liberty on which the whole western civilisation is based, and is no diferent than Sharia law.

It makes me wonder why people see divorce as such a good thing?

Yea, its better to stay in not functioning or abusive marriage till death do us part.. People should have a choice.

reply to post by FortAnthem

---

Yes, let's dismiss the words of the only Maltese person in this thread.

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Forced secularization? 54% of the country voted in favor of divorce with a 72% voter turnout (actually a bit low by our standards).

A slim 4% majority has been able to force a change in the whole culture of this country.

It's not a forced change to culture. Separations already happen, annulments already happen, divorces already happen for those with the wealth to spend six months as a resident in another EU nation.

Also, that 4% majority isn't all that slim when you consider that the Catholic church was telling people that they wouldn't be able to receive communion unless they voted against divorce...oh, and that the anti-divorce side was far better financed than the pro-divorce side. Oh, and that a major political party actually financed anti-divorce work, while the opposite party didn't do much of anything to support the anti-divorce work. Or that people were actually bussed in from old folks homes to vote against divorce....

Hell, anyway, minority rides shouldn't have even been decided by referendum in the first place. This insanity was a 4 million euro waste designed to keep parliament from doing its job.

And, as Maslo already pointed out, how is allowing people the choice about whether or not they want divorce an imposition?

Soon the island nation will find itself overrun with sleazy divorce lawyers looking for reasons to break up marriages, even those of the people who voted against this.

No, not really. Of course, you'd just rather toss out the slippery slope argument. You seem frightfully unaware of the proposed laws involved, which involve a four year period of separation prior to the divorce itself.

Also, since when are sleazy divorce lawyers radical Muslims?

It makes me wonder why people see divorce as such a good thing? Many studies have shown that the children of divorce are more prone to emotional problems and delinquency.

...and the problem isn't the divorce, the problem is the marriage breakdown itself. Which already happens in Malta. If people are separated then the children go through the same problems which lead to emotional issues and delinquent activity.

I have read studies that show that people find that divorce does not bring them the happiness they had hoped for and puts financial burdens on both parties of the divorce.

Divorce isn't legalized to make people happy, though I doubt 'americanvalues.org' is a scientific journal of merit in the first place, it's been legalized because there are people who want to remarry after being separated. The fact of the matter is that I'm sure quite a lot of these people wouldn't be any happier in the marriage they left.

With divorce now becoming legal, people will be more likely to just walk away from their problems rather than try to work things out, the children be damned.

I hope you realize that, as a Maltese person living in Malta, I've dealt with any argument you can possibly toss out.

No, they won't. It's not a 'children be damned' situation. I'd like to point out that staying in a toxic family environment for the sake of the children is harmful to the children.

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

---

I do understand that some Muslims do reject it, but to call nations that don't reject it and use traditional Islamic jurisprudence as part of their legal system not Muslim nations is more than a bit irrational. It would be like saying Malta's laws that are derived from Catholicism don't make it a nation that is, unfortunately for people like myself, a nation that is Christian.

Hopefully we'll secularize it.

Originally posted by Tib50
reply to post by lestweforget

---

Although it is an excellent post by FortAnthem, LestWeForget is absolutely right, and I never heard anyone sum up the whole situation so well and so briefly. If anyone doubts that the world conquest is the true intention of ALL MUSLIMS, in order to fulfill their religious duties as commanded by their own Koran, please look at websites like JihadWatch, The ReligionofPeace.com, Trencherbone, and also read about how the Grand Muslim Mufti of Jerusalem was such a great friend of Hitler that he not only sent Muslim troops to support Hitler and fight AGAINST US in World War II, but actually suggested the Final Solution of the gas chambers to Hitler.

Crushing the world under the Totalitarian Global Caliphate, and forcing us all into slavery, conversion or death under Sharia Law, is the true religious duty of EVERY MUSLIM, carefully hidden by their religious practice of "taqiyya": deception.

Exactly as christianity used to be, until secular society put an end to it.

reply to post by FortAnthem

---

You wrote:

["Ah yes, the old democratic "the majority can outlaw the minority" argument."]

What kind of democracy are you referring to? The one not acknowledging special extra-parliamentary priviliges to certain self-proclaimed elitist groups, and thus being dictatorial, because it opposes elitism?

An 'oppression of the elect' argument?

You can't be that ignorant about the principles of egalitarian, liberal, secular democracy as is suggested here. I hope you can clarify this for me.

The Truth About the Garden of Eden Story
  Posted 8 days ago with 49 member flags

The Mormon Church is a Cult
  Posted 11 days ago with 23 member flags

Where is the gospel of jesus?
  Posted 2 days ago with 18 member flags

Google Earth proves Muhammad-Islam
  Posted 1 days ago with 17 member flags

Who killed the prophet Muhammad? A 1400 year old murder mystery.
  Posted 16 days ago with 16 member flags

Was Jesus a Greek-Phoenician Philosopher? A hidden book, revealed…
  Posted 0 days ago with 15 member flags

Quake Reveals Day of Jesus\' Crucifixion
  Posted 3 days ago with 12 member flags

Is The Bible Real?
  Posted 19 days ago with 9 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: