to Boris

Submitted by tariq (United Arab Emirates), Jan 25, 2006 at 09:38

"This answer is the whole reason, why I made a statement about absolute flexibility of Islam"
you have a lot to learn about Islam. it s not absolutely flexible.

"now tell me - WHO DECIDES, whether "muslims or their religion are threatened"?"
It depends on the situation. Besides knowing tht you are under some kind of threat does not require anything more than commonsense.

" If you are a "moderate" Muslim (whatever that means) - you may think your people are not threatened. If you are "radical" - you may think entirely opposite and start killing with an excuse that you are acting in the name of Allah"

:-) your learning fast. just a few corrections are needed in your comment:

If you are a true muslim - you may think your people are not threatened. If you are a hypocrite, you may think entirely opposite and start killing with an excuse that you are acting in the name of Allah even when you are not.

"You may say - the radical is wrong. But the radical would say - you are wrong! So who IS wrong? "
Read the Quran.

"But don't you think it would rather be better to lose millions in Holocaust like Jews than respond violently to exaggerated threat? "
Lose millions? if u really believing in wot youre saying, are u prepared to lose your life for no reason?.

"lose millions in Holocaust like Jews than respond violently to exaggerated threat? ""
you are guilty of a fallacy Boris. The fallacy called False Analogy: -
Muslims in many parts of the world are in real danger which u have underestimated.
Also your comparison(analogy) to Holocaust with an overestimated threat is Also incorrect.
So next time plz get ut questions right.

"You are wrong, Mr. Tariq regarding priorities..."
Plz clarify. what priorities?

The entire civilized world learned centuries ago that peace and tolerance can be mainained ONLY if the Law of the Land has precedence before religious law.
Thats another fallacy called sweeping generalisation. You are trying to prove me wrong using opinions disguised as facts.
I think you need to come to the UAE. to see tht you are wrong.

"If a Muslim decides to live in the USA, he/or she can freely practice Islam, but also must to demonstrate loyalty to the host country if a Muslim law contradicts a Law of the Land."

When did i say tht muslims should not be loyal to their country? wen did i say tht muslims should break the laws of land if the laws are against Islam. Muslims can negotiate, but if they are unsuccessful in getting their their right to freely practice their religion, they should leave their country.

"Why? Because it is a fundamental ethical and judicial issue - if you commit a crime you will be tried according to the Law of the Land, and you are a victim - your offender will be tried according to the Law of the Land, not your religious law."

The Islamic laws are the best and the most effective.(and this is not a fallcay. Its just tht muslims have stopped following Islamic Laws)

"Then try to change the law using civilized methods or don't live in the US!"
Isnt tht wot i said?

"That is very simple"
Yet for some reason you are so confused.changing topics all the time and echoing my views while arguing against me!

"Thinking otherwise is again a way of making Islam ambigious and therefore flexible and open for multiple interpretations."
Multiple inertpretations are possible because the Quran is written in classical arabic which is very difficult to translate. still the different interpretions is very little. and all interpretaitons of the Quran teach the message of peace.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".