I wholeheartily agree with this. While I’m rapidly losing patience with Islam in general, it’s not a recipe for success to go poking them in the eye like that. Not to mention the first thing Hamas would probably do if they took over Jerusalem would be to shut down the synagogues and ban praying at the Western Wall.
The mosques blast their prayer calls at the highest possible volume and in many places they do it specifically to disrupt other people’s prayers.
Imagine if the local Catholic church in New York (since that’s where you’re from) were to place large outdoor speakers and specifically point them at the nearby mosque and blast hymns whenever the Muslims are at prayer. Would you consider a law or regulation to ban that practice a violation of religious freedom? That’s what the Muslims do in Israel. It’s not always a call to prayer, it’s very often a form of harassment.
I would generally agree that something like this is adding fuel to the flames but I also wonder if it is not as simple as religious freedom. Just like France banned girls at schools from wearing hijabs and other religious items in order to quell the growing tide of radical islam, that loud calls to prayer is distrubtive to others and as another poster pointed out done in such as way to annoy and harass, an “in your face” type of move. I know in Michigan, that there has been some problems with loud calls to prayer being publically broad cast to the community. Mosques can be not just houses of prayer but polical rallying places as well. On the surface, I would agree with you totally but I think there is more beneath the surface here.
Not a good move in general for any society that values religious freedom. It’s even a worse choice in a place like Israel where religious tensions are already high.
That said, I have lived in and visited a number of Muslim countries. Not all Muezzins (who sing the call to prayer) should be singing in public nor do they all have great PAs. The collective sound of 100’s of Mosques doing the call to prayer at once in a big city reminded me a bit of a air raid/tornado drill going off. It’s bed enough in some countries (Egypt comes to mind) that they have put restrictions on who can do the call to prayer and/or broadcast it over FM radio using Muezzins with good voices.
An interesting legal question might be whether a “call to prayer” which by definition covers a large area external to the worship site enjoys the same protection as prayer itself AT the site. A parallel example might be various local regulations governing at what hours, and how loudly, a Catholic Church can ring its bells. I’m aware of a number of communities that restrict when church bells can be rung.
Let me answer your question. In order for one to offer respectful tolerance toward the faith of other people it is necessary to identify the belief and understand what it offers. If acceptable, it would require that the practice of the faith is not harmful to others. Right?
I have decided against the Islamic belief and practice. Against, because it is bad. I feel free to express this decision because I have enjoyed all the freedoms that America offers and protects for our country. One freedom is to defend against harmful behaviors of others who believe in KILLING others who do NOT BELIEVE and LIVE according to their evil dictates.
False admiration and acceptance of beliefs that are fundamentally evil causes the harm to spread. The practice of “political correctness” is a tool used to deceive.
So every Muslim believes killing (and I believe the correct term here would be “murdering,” not “killing”) someone who doesn’t believe and live according to their “evil dictates”? And calling people to worship God (which this thread is actually about) is one of these “evil dictates”?
Plainly speaking, “killing” and “murdering” do have the same result but different approaches.
Islamic beheading of NON BELIEVERS would qualify. The title of “Muslim” is used to identify one who accepts and understands their choice of believing in Islam to the level of having a faith in their belief. It is possible that a person could have no faith, little faith, and an all consuming faith in what they have chosen to believe and act accordingly. Is the result harmful to others?? I have decided the practice of Islam is harmful to others and very often fatal to others and those who act according to that belief/faith. The acts of evil are taking place presently and have been historically. The killing, mutilation and slavery of others has an unknown total. The killings include “do it (to) yourself” in order to harm and kill others.
Would you like to explain how these facts regarding Islam/Muslim could be understood as
worthy of acceptance to God? Might be a little impossible right? Ya just can’t get good fruit from a bad tree!
This thread is about banning Islamic prayer call. I am in favor.
First, the difference between murdering and killing isn’t the approach, but the intent and justness of the act. Focusing on just the result, as you seem to be doing, is throwing out Catholic theology and deciding that the only thing that matters is effect of the act.
Second, you didn’t actually answer my questions. Your entire argument is built upon the assumption that Islam teaches that all Muslims have to murder (or using your base assumption killing since it would be deemed as just in your version of Islam) non-Muslims.
Third, it’s not actually hard at all to say that there are aspects within Islam that are worthy of acceptance to God. It’s not hard because within Islam are truths taken from the Jewish and Christian faiths. That these truths are surrounded by error and untruth doesn’t actually change the truthfulness of these truths. Let’s look at the call to prayer-
God is the greatest, God is the greatest- well this of course must be wrong right? I bear witness that there is no deity but God- Completely against what Judaism and Christianity teaches right? I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.- Oh wow, the first item that does actually run counter to what Judaism and Christianity teaches. This of course must invalidate the prior to statements right? I testify that Ali is the authority (wali) of God.- Statement number two that runs counter to what Judaism and Christianity teaches. Yep, none of this can be true now. Hasten to worship (salat).- Yeah, worshipping God is completely against what Judaism and Christianity teach.
**Hasten to success **- Yep, can’t have any success if your a Jew or Christian.
**The time for the best of deeds has come! **- Good deeds?!?! What are they, Catholics?
**God is the greatest **- How dare those Muslims try to claim God is the greatest; and to do it 5 times a day. The outrage. There is no deity but God- Apparently the 1st Commandment was written by a Muslim.
Well thanks to you and your misapplication of the “good fruits” passage I now “know” that- God isn’t the only god, He isn’t the greatest, we shouldn’t do good works, and we shouldn’t worship Him.
Now back to the questions I asked- So every Muslim believes killing (and I believe the correct term here would be “murdering,” not “killing”) someone who doesn’t believe and live according to their “evil dictates”? And calling people to worship God (which this thread is actually about) is one of these “evil dictates”?
Were we driving cars then? That could be a problem for me as a non driver. If you make contentions be prepared to be asked to shoulder the burden of proof consequent to those contentions I would submit. Of course it is always much easier to throw out vast generalisations about hundreds of millions of peoples and leave the conversation when those can’t be sustained.