Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

Actually, no. She is someone who loves her religion, but you all are unable to understand that love of Islam does not equal to approval of the way it is practiced today, or the way of life in Muslim-majority countries. You all keep trying to make her answer for every injustice every Muslim ruler has ever perpetrated, and it doesn't make any sense.

You have it wrong, pp- she is the one constantly inserting herself into any discussion involving Islam, attempting to explain and rationalize practices that seem backwards, and generally trying to spin everything she possibly can as positively as she can. As someone who has gotten into a few mini-debates with her, I don't think she's looking for an honest discussion, or that she's self-aware. She's just here to promote Islam.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

Actually, no. She is someone who loves her religion, but you all are unable to understand that love of Islam does not equal to approval of the way it is practiced today, or the way of life in Muslim-majority countries. You all keep trying to make her answer for every injustice every Muslim ruler has ever perpetrated, and it doesn't make any sense.

Thank you PP!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

Wow, Saudi Arabia is not a caliphate....You do know that is is a Kingdom with a King, right??

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

Because those are the rules that a caliphate has to follow, there are written rules, just like the Constitution of the USA. You cited ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate, keyword, self-proclaimed, a caliphate can not be self-proclaimed, the people have to accept the caliphate and Choose him. You can not self-proclaim your caliphate if the Muslims reject it. More than 120 Muslim scholars around the world released a statement denouncing ISIS and rejecting its caliphate. The statement said, "It is forbidden in Islam to torture, to attribute evil acts to God, to force people to convert to Islam, to deny women and children of their rights. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur'an – or part of a verse – to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur'an and Hadith teach related to that matter." By virtue of the rejection of the Muslim Ummah of its caliphate, ISIS can not and is not a Muslim caliphate despite what they say

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

On that note, read this, from the Washington Post no less.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-the-honor-brigade-an-organized-campaign-to-silence-critics-of-islam/2015/01/16/0b002e5a-9aaf-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

I have not heard her call anyone "Islamophobe", as this brigade tends to do. But I have seen a number of people throw around the anti-semite accusation quite a bit.

oh give me a break.

Is my statement factually incorrect? If so, please cite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

Actually, no. She is someone who loves her religion, but you all are unable to understand that love of Islam does not equal to approval of the way it is practiced today, or the way of life in Muslim-majority countries. You all keep trying to make her answer for every injustice every Muslim ruler has ever perpetrated, and it doesn't make any sense.

Your post is not a response to mine. try again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

Actually, no. She is someone who loves her religion, but you all are unable to understand that love of Islam does not equal to approval of the way it is practiced today, or the way of life in Muslim-majority countries. You all keep trying to make her answer for every injustice every Muslim ruler has ever perpetrated, and it doesn't make any sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

On that note, read this, from the Washington Post no less.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-the-honor-brigade-an-organized-campaign-to-silence-critics-of-islam/2015/01/16/0b002e5a-9aaf-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

I have not heard her call anyone "Islamophobe", as this brigade tends to do. But I have seen a number of people throw around the anti-semite accusation quite a bit.

oh give me a break.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

On that note, read this, from the Washington Post no less.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-the-honor-brigade-an-organized-campaign-to-silence-critics-of-islam/2015/01/16/0b002e5a-9aaf-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

I have not heard her call anyone "Islamophobe", as this brigade tends to do. But I have seen a number of people throw around the anti-semite accusation quite a bit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

Yes, it is SO important to sway the opinion of this august body of nation builders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

On that note, read this, from the Washington Post no less.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-the-honor-brigade-an-organized-campaign-to-silence-critics-of-islam/2015/01/16/0b002e5a-9aaf-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

Anonymous wrote:

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

How exactly are churches and synagogues protected in Saudi Arabia when the the public practice of other religions is illegal.

I am more and more (and more) convinced that Muslima is both: (a) more than one person; and (b) a paid mouthpiece of a third party.

Muslima wrote:

That's not true. The caliphate was tolerant of other religions because they Wanted to be, and above all because that is what is dictated by the Qu'ran. They were not minorities over a course of centuries, they could have dictated whatever laws they wanted had they chose to do so.

Not all religions. Only Abrahamic religions. The Quran clearly dictates teeth-gritting tolerance only to Jews and Christians. No one else.

Muslima wrote:
Umar's treaty when he conquered Jerusalem is seen today by far as one of the most progressive treaties in History and one of the first and most significant guarantees of religious freedom in history.

The dhimma treaty Umar made with the Christians of Syria is one of the most repressive documents ever signed. The treatment of non-Muslims at the hands of Muslims, like everywhere else by everyone else, was dictated by political, and not clerical factors. Let's see what the good people of Syria have agreed to. Bolding mine:

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have beenallotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

Muslima wrote:
The Caliph is not appointed by God rather he is elected by the people and assumes authority through the bayah contract. Without this bayah he cannot be the head of state. This is totally opposite to the post of a King or Dictator who imposes his authority on the people through coercion and force. Non-Muslims are referred to as dhimmi (people of contract) in the Caliphate, which means they enjoy the full rights of citizenship.

No, he is not elected by the people. At best, he is elected by a handful of the most powerful Muslim men. In the only instance of the caliphate - the Ottoman empire - the caliph was elected from the litter of male children born to the sultan by his concubines. Most of the Ottoman Turkish sultans had slave mothers.

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

This is ridiculous. You talk about this caliphate as if it exists now! How do you know what some imaginary government would or would not do, if it had power?

ISIS's self proclaimed caliphate is doing a lot worse than the British, including mistreatment of "infidels" and Muslims alike.

I'm just waiting for the interfaith mass by the kaa ba