reply to post by InhaleExhale
No, do you understand what a request is?
Yes, I do understand a request. A request made between one party and another is a reasonable request. A request that's made between one culture -
Islam - with the west, asking the latter to abide by the moral protocols of the former, is not a fair request. In fact, it nullifies the very nature
of the latter's philosophical position.
Sure, they can ask; but the ask always carries with it the threat of: in our culture, if someone made a video like that, he would be killed
That is the extremity of their law. It's not like they just dislike
the insult to their religion; they vociferously loathe it. They go to the
furthest extent possible to punish those who do it.
It is nothing but idiocy and shoddy reasoning that see's this request of the party which rules Egypt as being 'nothing but' a request. It's a
demand of Shari'a, and given Islams history, shari'a demands certain things of non-Muslims
, one of which, you cannot insult or deprecate the
prophet of Islam, or the Sunnah. The consequence for such an infraction is death, by the law.
No one is imposing anything that you speak of, requests have been made which don't have to be met.
I realize that. But I also suspect a desire to impose their culture on us; the very act itself testifies to it.
Let me give you an example from myself. I don't approve of homosexuality mainly for metaphysical reasons. However, since I know the position of the
other - that which is not myself - and can see how they can feel as if it is a justifiable act, I accord them the right to do so. Thus, my desire will
never actually infringe on their right; I will not go about telling homosexuals "not to" go about. I may not like it, I may find it obnoxious when
they kiss in public, but I'll keep shut about it. It's my own personal affair.
This is what democracy requires. If they can't shut their mouth and do what I just described before, that is, recognize the ideological basis of
those who defend the right to free speech, and respect that right, then they show that their culture is incompatible with democratic society.
And it also justifies my caution in forewarning those who don't know this that democratic law does not permit them to live in strict obedience to
Shari'a law. If you live in a democratic society, democratic law is supreme; Shari'a may govern matters similar to how Halakah works with Orthodox
Jews, but the final say is democratic law, based on the constitution and bill of rights.
This is a basic logical fact. Not even to mention the indisputable fact that the Muslim Brotherhood actively works within the US
, even trying insinuate shari'a law into American court under the rubric of "transnational
law" where US courts would make decisions for Muslims plaintiffs based on not US American law, based on the constitution, but under Shari'a law,
If you don't see a problem with the US court adjudicating according to Islamic thinking, where women can be exploited in divorce cases (which is what
shari'a accords the man) etc; and this doesn't even touch on radical shari'a affirmation of honor killings, wife beating, killing those who insult
Islam, and it's overall attitude to non-Muslims.