Social Muslim call to prayer echoes out in Minn

[Dober4]

do you personally know of any refugees?

No, do you personally know anyone with Coronavirus?

 

[Islam Imamate]

how do you limit soundwaves to 40 houses? It just reaches the radius and stops? like i said, might be a solution to a village, in an actuall city it is just a stupid aproach.

If the mosque insists on sticking to tradition by having the adhan despite not being in a Muslim neighborhood then they should do it the old fashioned way with just the human voice and no electronic amplification which would limit how far it can be heard. But the 40 houses should still be consulted for other reasons(making sure the design of the mosque is agreeable to nearby residents, sorting out issues of parking and so on).

 

[weed]

No, do you personally know anyone with Coronavirus?

unfortunately, yes. I shared the story the other day. the husband of one of my mother's best friend just passed away. this woman used to babysit my little sister. their whole family got infected. some are still sick.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Let them have their prayers. It’s Radaman

 

[Bald1]

Uh, wtf? I've asked you more than once to clarify and then you never do and then cry like you're doing here about me twisting your words. So then here's a straight question; should Muslim have the right to proselytize in the West?

Admittedly I was having a shit day yesterday and was being a dick. For that I apologize.

Yes, they should in accordance with our laws and values. If they can't take mockery or a piss Mohamed "art" piece then too damned bad.

Now how do you think your less evolved brethren would react?

 

[DeJulez]

It's cold there.
So it's out of my way of giving a frizzled fuck

 

[Islam Imamate]

Admittedly I was having a shit day yesterday and was being a dick. For that I apologize.

Yes, they should in accordance with our laws and values. If they can't take mockery or a piss Mohamed "art" piece then too damned bad.

Now how do you think your less evolved brethren would react?

Sure some Muslims overreact, that's obvious. But at the same time its not like secular society isn't repressive in its own right. Consider the infamous incident of the burkini in France

Doesn't the sight of armed police forcing a woman to strip in public strike you as, idk, maybe a little repressive? Women have the right to go frolicking in nudist beaches but apparently don't have the right to cover up because that offends the sensibilities of others? And Muslims should want their societies to be more like this, to be overtly hostile to their own traditions?

So let me ask you a related question to the one you kinda dodged earlier that ties into this idea of secularism as the absolute gateway of progress. Of course you just don't want to live in the Muslim world, that's fine. But consider the average Muslim of the world in the context of this discussion about secularism and Islam and whatnot.

Why should the average Muslim want to secularize their societies when the secular republics in their midst have largely been abject failures while the conservative monarchies have been fabulous successes? Heck these so called backwards countries actually get along better with the West than the secular republics which, one by one, have been ravaged by this or that Western intervention. Egypt is an exception in that regard but its a proper shithole country in terms of development and its not even free either.

If you look at where Muslims want to travel for work in the Muslim world its the conservative monarchies. Its not just Muslims either, its non-Muslims too. From poor Filipinos to educated Westerners they flock to the Gulf for its vast opportunities. No one is flocking to the secular republics, even the ones that aren't failed states. Do you think a college graduate from the West is more likely to seek work in Egypt and Algeria over the Gulf? The numbers suggest otherwise.

Even the less wealthy monarchies like Jordan and Morocco are generally better off, both in terms of development and relations with the West, than the secular Muslim nations. Senegal is an example I like to point to of a free and secular Muslim nation but there its the state that is secular while the society remains highly religious and has, better than any other Muslim country, preserved the tradition of Sufism(~95% of the population is part of a Sufi brotherhood). Just based off experience it certainly looks to me that embracing Islam is more effective than rejecting it in favor of secularism for Muslim societies. Just my two cents though.

 

[4daLuLZ]

Sure some Muslims overreact, that's obvious. But at the same time its not like secular society isn't repressive in its own right. Consider the infamous incident of the burkini in France

Doesn't the sight of armed police forcing a woman to strip in public strike you as, idk, maybe a little repressive? Women have the right to go frolicking in nudist beaches but apparently don't have the right to cover up because that offends the sensibilities of others? And Muslims should want their societies to be more like this, to be overtly hostile to their own traditions?

So let me ask you a related question to the one you kinda dodged earlier that ties into this idea of secularism as the absolute gateway of progress. Of course you just don't want to live in the Muslim world, that's fine. But consider the average Muslim of the world in the context of this discussion about secularism and Islam and whatnot.

Why should the average Muslim want to secularize their societies when the secular republics in their midst have largely been abject failures while the conservative monarchies have been fabulous successes? Heck these so called backwards countries actually get along better with the West than the secular republics which, one by one, have been ravaged by this or that Western intervention. Egypt is an exception in that regard but its a proper shithole country in terms of development and its not even free either.

If you look at where Muslims want to travel for work in the Muslim world its the conservative monarchies. Its not just Muslims either, its non-Muslims too. From poor Filipinos to educated Westerners they flock to the Gulf for its vast opportunities. No one is flocking to the secular republics, even the ones that aren't failed states. Do you think a college graduate from the West is more likely to seek work in Egypt and Algeria over the Gulf? The numbers suggest otherwise.

Even the less wealthy monarchies like Jordan and Morocco are generally better off, both in terms of development and relations with the West, than the secular Muslim nations. Senegal is an example I like to point to of a free and secular Muslim nation but there its the state that is secular while the society remains highly religious and has, better than any other Muslim country, preserved the tradition of Sufism(~95% of the population is part of a Sufi brotherhood). Just based off experience it certainly looks to me that embracing Islam is more effective than rejecting it in favor of secularism for Muslim societies. Just my two cents though.

lolwut ?

Saying that some Muslims "overact" is saying a nuclear explosion is like a lil fart in a thunderstorm.

The pic you posted is a bit too strict and especially when you think of it in the terms you put. However I’d put that the abaya or whatever that woman is wearing isn’t just a simple covering. It has strong religious connotations and at a especially sensitive time.
Imagine wearing a Confederate outfit and chilling in a black lives matter protest. She could wear jeans, loose pants, a fucking mumu or whatever but she’s made a conscious choice not to. Making a lot of her fellow beach goers uncomfortable.
I do agree it is a bit much though but the French have always been hard on overt religion.

As for the bit about the Pinoys loving the Gulf countries, compared to secular Muslim countries......lol, have you been sniffing glue ?
The S.E. Asians go to the gulf because of the supposed riches and paycheques and it’s cheap air ticket and closeness to their countries. Not because they love it.
The gulf countries are a hell hole for them. Notorious for physical, sexual and emotional abuse with ZERO legal protections.
The Philippines and Sri Lanks (I think) recently had to threaten to ban their citizens from going there ffs.

People go to the Gulf for that oil money. That’s it. That money gives those countries the veneer of that fabulousness you talk about but that’s just what it is.....surface.

And Jordan is fked up with terrorism and shit due to their continued support and presence of Palestine and it’s terrorists.

And why are you calling Egypt, Morocco and Algeria etc Muslim secular states ? Islám is their nations official religion. It’s even in their flag ffs. You get the chop if you fuck around there with their religion.

The only ones who are doing good (comparatively) are the monarchies but that’s because of the oil. That it. Nothing else.

 

[Islam Imamate]

lolwut ?

Saying that some Muslims "overact" is like saying a nuclear explosion is like a lil fart in a thunderstorm.

The pic you posted is a bit too strict and especially when you think of it in the terms you put. However I’d put that the abaya or whatever that woman is wearing isn’t just a simple covering. It has strong religious connotations and at a especially sensitive time.
Imagine wearing a Confederate outfit and chilling in a black lives matter protest.
She could wear jeans, loose pants, a fucking mumu or whatever but she’s made a conscious choice not to. Making a lot of her fellow beach goers uncomfortable.
I do agree it is a bit much though but the French have always been hard on overt religion.

Comparing a Confederate flag to an abaya is full retard. Across time and space Islamic symbols have had varying meanings but the Confederate flag is the symbol of a very specific time and place and a fairly unambiguous one.

Secularists often claim that religious people need to tolerate the dress choices and expressions of others but somehow when the shoe is on the other foot that tolerance is nowhere to be seen.Somehow, a woman wearing some clothing that triggers others is an egregious enough offense for armed enforcers of the state to force her to strip in public.

As for the bit about the Pinoys loving the Gulf countries, compared to secular Muslim countries......lol, have you been sniffing glue ?
The S.E. Asians go to the gulf because of the supposed riches and paycheques and it’s cheap air ticket and closeness to their countries. Not because they love it.
The gulf countries are a hell hole for them. Notorious for physical, sexual and emotional abuse with ZERO legal protections.
The Philippines and Sri Lanks (I think) recently had to threaten to ban their citizens from going there ffs.

People go to the Gulf for that oil money. That’s it. That money gives those countries the veneer of that fabulousness you talk about but that’s just what it is.....surface.

But that's dodging the point I made in that post that other Middle Eastern states have a lot of oil and are failed states like Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Its the Gulf states that have been able to leverage their oil money far more effectively.

Its no secret that low income foreign workers have very few rights and yet they still flock there for the economic opportunity; remittances from the Gulf to SEA number in the billions. They're not flocking to Algeria for a reason.

And Jordan is fked up with terrorism and shit due to their continued support and presence of Palestine and it’s terrorists.

Still better off than Iraq or Syria or Libya despite having virtually no oil resources(ranked 95 in the world in oil reserves).

And why are you calling Egypt, Morocco and Algeria etc Muslim secular states ? Islám is their nations official religion. It’s even in their flag ffs. You get the chop if you fuck around there with their religion.

They're certainly a lot more secular than the Gulf countries though so if the thesis that "secularism=progress" was correct they'd be more developed than the Gulf states, not less.

The only ones who are doing good (comparatively) are the monarchies but that’s because of the oil. That it. Nothing else.

But the oil explanation doesn't really work; the only Gulf country with larger oil reserves than Iraq is Saudi Arabia and yet Iraq is a failed state. Libya has more oil than Oman and Qatar and is also a failed state. Brunei ranks 39 in oil reserves and yet is a very highly developed state.

 

[4daLuLZ]

Comparing a Confederate flag to an abaya is full retard. Across time and space Islamic symbols have had varying meanings but the Confederate flag is the symbol of a very specific time and place and a fairly unambiguous one.

Secularists often claim that religious people need to tolerate the dress choices and expressions of others but somehow when the shoe is on the other foot that tolerance is nowhere to be seen.Somehow, a woman wearing some clothing that triggers others is an egregious enough offense for armed enforcers of the state to force her to strip in public.

But that's dodging the point I made in that post that other Middle Eastern states have a lot of oil and are failed states like Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Its the Gulf states that have been able to leverage their oil money far more effectively.

Its no secret that low income foreign workers have very few rights and yet they still flock there for the economic opportunity; remittances from the Gulf to SEA number in the billions. They're not flocking to Algeria for a reason.

Still better off than Iraq or Syria or Libya despite having virtually no oil resources(ranked 95 in the world in oil reserves).

They're certainly a lot more secular than the Gulf countries though so if the thesis that "secularism=progress" was correct they'd be more developed than the Gulf states, not less.

But the oil explanation doesn't really work; the only Gulf country with larger oil reserves than Iraq is Saudi Arabia and yet Iraq is a failed state. Libya has more oil than Oman and Qatar and is also a failed state. Brunei ranks 39 in oil reserves and yet is a very highly developed state.

^this guy.



The only thing holding back your Gulf "paradises" from being an Iraq or a Libya is removal of the country’s dictator/ monarch.
That removal either from a public uprising or an American "freedom" intervention.

And an Abaya and the Confederate flag are the same principle, differing only in degrees. Both are symbols of oppression and control.
The abaya / burkha / hijab is NOT the same as the moon n stars or whatever Islamic imagery there is. I didn’t compare it with that.
It’s a device born from an ideology to control and shame females and pass on the "blame" and responsibility, for any criminal actions, by Muslim males.
It has nothing to do with Islam or Mohammad or whatever.

If I wore a smock filled with crosses n Jesus in one of your supposed cultural havens in the Gulf, we all know it wouldn’t be a couple of polite officers asking me to leave or remove the dress, it would be a disappearance then a quick 90 second video uploaded on LiveLeak or BestGore or something.

And on that note, why don’t you post the rest of the pics from that incident ? The cops didn’t "force her to strip" or anything, they just told her to remove the blue smock she had ON TOP of the burkini she has on or leave the beach. Which she does. Removing the top that is.
You know there’s clubs, restaurants and businesses where they have a dress code too.
Public spaces too. You can’t walk into a courtroom in a bikini or jump in a pool with a tux on and cry fascism when they kick you out.


There is so much more Muslim apologetic bs in your post that there is no point even refuting anything else in there.

I'll just end with this. Muslim countries are majority a shit place. Muslims individually are fine but as a society and as a religion they’re long overdue for a Reformation and an ideological change that most all other major religions have had.
And people need to stop apologising, whatabouting or whitewashing it’s flaws.

 

[Islam Imamate]

^this guy.



The only thing holding back your Gulf "paradises" from being an Iraq or a Libya is removal of the country’s dictator/ monarch.
That removal either from a public uprising or an American "freedom" intervention.

And guess what, the monarchies all have good relations with the West so the likelihood of that happening is very low. They've been able to use their oil wealth to create connections while the secular republics used them to militarize in a dick measuring contest that didn't work out very well in the end.

Plus its not just the failed states that suck; Egypt and Algeria don't compare to the Gulf states or Brunei in development despite not being invaded. You can't claim its just oil either since Algeria has that, in fact their state oil company is the largest company in Africa in terms of capitalization.

And an Abaya and the Confederate flag are the same principle, differing only in degrees. Both are symbols of oppression and control.
The abaya / burkha / hijab is NOT the same as the moon n stars or whatever Islamic imagery there is. I didn’t compare it with that.
It’s a device born from an ideology to control and shame females and pass on the "blame" and responsibility, for any criminal actions, by Muslim males.
It has nothing to do with Islam or Mohammad or whatever.

Lots of them choose to wear that. I get that secularists can't even imagine the idea of a woman internalizing the value of modesty but guess what, it does happen.

If I wore a smock filled with crosses n Jesus in one of your supposed cultural havens in the Gulf, we all know it wouldn’t be a couple of polite officers asking me to leave or remove the dress, it would be a disappearance then a quick 90 second video uploaded on LiveLeak or BestGore or something.

I'm not pretending they are free countries, they're certainly not. But neither are the secular republics. If I am going to live in a unfree country I'd rather live in a highly developed one than a poor one or one that is a failed state.

And on that note, why don’t you post the rest of the pics from that incident ? The cops didn’t "force her to strip" or anything, they just told her to remove the blue smock she had ON TOP of the burkini she has on or leave the beach. Which she does. Removing the top that is.
You know there’s clubs, restaurants and businesses where they have a dress code too.
Public spaces too. You can’t walk into a courtroom in a bikini or jump in a pool with a tux on and cry fascism when they kick you out.

I agree that there are dress codes and norms at various levels in society; for public spaces, for private establishments and also for spaces where security is an acute concern(banks, jewelry shops and so on). Somehow only when religious norms govern these codes are they seen as bad, when its secular norms then its okay.

As for the specific incident, they forced her to take off her clothing and likely fined her for it. At least one other woman was fined for wearing a headscarf on a beach. You can try downplay the way the incident unfolded but its pretty repressive. If Muslims are going to live under a repressive government, and they generally do with only a handful of exceptions, they seem to prefer one that conforms to their values rather than one that is hostile to it and I see no good argument for them to accept the latter when in the Muslim world its generally failed compared to the former.

There is so much more Muslim apologetic bs in your post that there is no point even refuting anything else in there.

I'll just end with this. Muslim countries are majority a shit place. Muslims individually are fine but as a society and as a religion they’re long overdue for a Reformation and an ideological change that most all other major religions have had.
And people need to stop apologising, whatabouting or whitewashing it’s flaws.

But again that avoids the fact that the more conservative countries are generally more successful than the secular ones. In fact secular ideologies and secularism in general were very popular in the region in the mid 20th century but all those political experiments have generally failed while its the conservative monarchies that have emerged as the region's success stories.

There's a reason the Arab Spring didn't topple a single one of the monarchies but the republics got wrecked.

 

[Graves The Elder]

holy shit the sacred walls of text.
no way I get away with some throwaway, flippant smirk or gif here.
damn the gods

 

[4daLuLZ]

And guess what, the monarchies all have good relations with the West so the likelihood of that happening is very low.
Iraq, Iran were both monarchies and best buds with the west, in the 60s. Sooooo......yeeeeeah.

They've been able to use their oil wealth to create connections while the secular republics used them to militarize in a dick measuring contest that didn't work out very well in the end.

Lol, Jordan , Saudi Arabia......literally all of them spend a disproportionate amount of money on arms with the sole purpose of appeasing their buddies and of course, dick measuring.


Lots of them choose to wear that. I get that secularists can't even imagine the idea of a woman internalizing the value of modesty but guess what, it does happen.

Lol. Stockholm syndrome is a real thing. And if it’s so voluntary why do their governments and / or relatives beat the shit out of those that don’t want to ?


I agree that there are dress codes and norms at various levels in society; for public spaces, for private establishments and also for spaces where security is an acute concern(banks, jewelry shops and so on). Somehow only when religious norms govern these codes are they seen as bad, when its secular norms then its okay.


If you can’t see the difference then

As for the specific incident, they forced her to take off her clothing and likely fined her for it. At least one other woman was fined for wearing a headscarf on a beach. You can try downplay the way the incident unfolded but its pretty repressive. If Muslims are going to live under a repressive government, and they generally do with only a handful of exceptions, they seem to prefer one that conforms to their values rather than one that is hostile to it and I see no good argument for them to accept the latter when in the Muslim world its generally failed compared to the former.

Hey, it’s France. I’m sure Saudi Arabia is waiting with open arms to accept these Sudanese, Ethiopian etc immigrants with open arms.



But again that avoids the fact that the more conservative countries are generally more successful than the secular ones.

Talking about which country is more (or less) conservative from between Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Bahrain etc etc is like deciding who’s the most beautiful from between 5 Muslim women .........fully covered in burkas.



There's a reason the Arab Spring didn't topple a single one of the monarchies but the republics got wrecked.

The only difference in government between Ghadaffi era Libya and Saudi Arabia was semantics.

I'll just quickly go over some things for the others reading this.
Points highlighted in red above.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Iraq, Iran were both monarchies and best buds with the west, in the 60s. Sooooo......yeeeeeah.

Neither were invaded though, they were toppled from within. Plus the Shah's regime was very, very secular.

Lol, Jordan , Saudi Arabia......literally all of them spend a disproportionate amount of money on arms with the sole purpose of appeasing their buddies and of course, dick measuring.

They buy shiny equipment but they don't actually develop their military because that's a recipe for a coup. They have very small militaries in terms of manpower and the military is not emphasized as a path of upward mobility the way it was in countries like Syria and Iraq(which under Saddam had a million men).

Lol. Stockholm syndrome is a real thing. And if it’s so voluntary why do their governments and / or relatives beat the shit out of those that don’t want to ?

Obviously I am not going to pretend women who cover up in countries where its the law are doing it voluntarily but in the West more often than not its voluntary. What's not voluntary is when they don't cover up in countries like France and Turkey where its legally restricted. And so the double standard reveals itself; using the law to make women cover up is wrong but using the law to prevent them from doing so is not.

Hey, it’s France. I’m sure Saudi Arabia is waiting with open arms to accept these Sudanese, Ethiopian etc immigrants with open arms.

37% of the Kingdom's population are immigrants.

Talking about which country is more (or less) conservative from between Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Bahrain etc etc is like deciding who’s the most beautiful from between 5 Muslim women .........fully covered in burkas.

That just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Syria was very secular before the civil war. A police state sure but a secular one.

The only difference in government between Ghadaffi era Libya and Saudi Arabia was semantics.

That also shows you don't know what you're talking about. Gaddafi government was arguably like no other but his ideas were heavily influenced by Arab socialism and Arab nationalism and by the standards of the region he was very secular. In fact he pissed off both Sunnis(tried to assassinate a Saudi king) and Shias(disappeared an influential Shia cleric from Lebanon).

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

So let me ask you a related question to the one you kinda dodged earlier that ties into this idea of secularism as the absolute gateway of progress. Of course you just don't want to live in the Muslim world, that's fine. But consider the average Muslim of the world in the context of this discussion about secularism and Islam and whatnot.

Why should the average Muslim want to secularize their societies when the secular republics in their midst have largely been abject failures while the conservative monarchies have been fabulous successes? Heck these so called backwards countries actually get along better with the West than the secular republics which, one by one, have been ravaged by this or that Western intervention. Egypt is an exception in that regard but its a proper shithole country in terms of development and its not even free either.

That is an interesting and complex question, why were enlightenment ideals like individual liberty, constitutional government, reason, secularism etc. and events like the scientific revolution so much more successful in Europe compared to the Islamic world. I'd say up until the 16th century, Europe, China and the Islamic world were close to equal in terms of advancement but Europe utilized the enlightenment / scientific revolution / capitalism to advance further. Turkey, a successful muslim majority constitutional republic is an exception, mostly to do with geography and it's proximity and access to Enlightenment philosophy.

I'd be willing to guess a major reason would be that Islam has a much more robust political/social component as compared to Christianity and It would be much more difficult to limit Islam to matters of personal belief over state run Islamic political authority. Another reason for the rejection of secularism in the muslim world could be that it's perceived as a foreign ideology imposed by colonial invaders that wish to impose their way of life on muslims. Tough question and I'm sure there's many more factors.

 

[French Canadian]

Sure some Muslims overreact, that's obvious. But at the same time its not like secular society isn't repressive in its own right. Consider the infamous incident of the burkini in France

Doesn't the sight of armed police forcing a woman to strip in public strike you as, idk, maybe a little repressive? Women have the right to go frolicking in nudist beaches but apparently don't have the right to cover up because that offends the sensibilities of others? And Muslims should want their societies to be more like this, to be overtly hostile to their own traditions?

So let me ask you a related question to the one you kinda dodged earlier that ties into this idea of secularism as the absolute gateway of progress. Of course you just don't want to live in the Muslim world, that's fine. But consider the average Muslim of the world in the context of this discussion about secularism and Islam and whatnot.

Why should the average Muslim want to secularize their societies when the secular republics in their midst have largely been abject failures while the conservative monarchies have been fabulous successes? Heck these so called backwards countries actually get along better with the West than the secular republics which, one by one, have been ravaged by this or that Western intervention. Egypt is an exception in that regard but its a proper shithole country in terms of development and its not even free either.

If you look at where Muslims want to travel for work in the Muslim world its the conservative monarchies. Its not just Muslims either, its non-Muslims too. From poor Filipinos to educated Westerners they flock to the Gulf for its vast opportunities. No one is flocking to the secular republics, even the ones that aren't failed states. Do you think a college graduate from the West is more likely to seek work in Egypt and Algeria over the Gulf? The numbers suggest otherwise.

Even the less wealthy monarchies like Jordan and Morocco are generally better off, both in terms of development and relations with the West, than the secular Muslim nations. Senegal is an example I like to point to of a free and secular Muslim nation but there its the state that is secular while the society remains highly religious and has, better than any other Muslim country, preserved the tradition of Sufism(~95% of the population is part of a Sufi brotherhood). Just based off experience it certainly looks to me that embracing Islam is more effective than rejecting it in favor of secularism for Muslim societies. Just my two cents though.

What do you think of Tunisia ? They're the only one that succeeded in their revolution.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That is an interesting and complex question, why were enlightenment ideals like individual liberty, constitutional government, reason, secularism etc. and events like the scientific revolution so much more successful in Europe compared to the Islamic world. I'd say up until the 16th century, Europe, China and the Islamic world were close to equal in terms of advancement but Europe utilized the enlightenment / scientific revolution / capitalism to advance further. Turkey, a successful muslim majority constitutional republic is an exception, mostly to do with geography and it's proximity and access to Enlightenment philosophy.

I'd be willing to guess a major reason would be that Islam has a much more robust political/social component as compared to Christianity and It would be much more difficult to limit Islam to matters of personal belief over state run Islamic political authority. Another reason for the rejection of secularism in the muslim world could be that it's perceived as a foreign ideology imposed by colonial invaders that wish to impose their way of life on muslims. Tough question and I'm sure there's many more factors.

Secularism wasn't necessarily rejected though, many Muslim countries were fair secular in the mid 20th century. Its just that secular projects failed miserably.

What do you think of Tunisia ? They're the only one that succeeded in their revolution.

They're an interesting exception, a secular and relatively free and democratic country. Not unlike Senegal in that sense and both are former French colonies which probably isn't an accident though I'd say Senegal has a much more religious society(~95% of the population are part of a Sufi brotherhood) despite both having a relatively secular state(both list Islam as the official state religion though). Its also in the high human development category according to the Human Development Index which is not bad though of course still still behind the Gulf monarchies.

 

[ElKarlo]

lolwut ?

Saying that some Muslims "overact" is like saying a nuclear explosion is like a lil fart in a thunderstorm.

The pic you posted is a bit too strict and especially when you think of it in the terms you put. However I’d put that the abaya or whatever that woman is wearing isn’t just a simple covering. It has strong religious connotations and at a especially sensitive time.
Imagine wearing a Confederate outfit and chilling in a black lives matter protest. She could wear jeans, loose pants, a fucking mumu or whatever but she’s made a conscious choice not to. Making a lot of her fellow beach goers uncomfortable.
I do agree it is a bit much though but the French have always been hard on overt religion.

As for the bit about the Pinoys loving the Gulf countries, compared to secular Muslim countries......lol, have you been sniffing glue ?
The S.E. Asians go to the gulf because of the supposed riches and paycheques and it’s cheap air ticket and closeness to their countries. Not because they love it.
The gulf countries are a hell hole for them. Notorious for physical, sexual and emotional abuse with ZERO legal protections.
The Philippines and Sri Lanks (I think) recently had to threaten to ban their citizens from going there ffs.

People go to the Gulf for that oil money. That’s it. That money gives those countries the veneer of that fabulousness you talk about but that’s just what it is.....surface.

And Jordan is fked up with terrorism and shit due to their continued support and presence of Palestine and it’s terrorists.

And why are you calling Egypt, Morocco and Algeria etc Muslim secular states ? Islám is their nations official religion. It’s even in their flag ffs. You get the chop if you fuck around there with their religion.

The only ones who are doing good (comparatively) are the monarchies but that’s because of the oil. That it. Nothing else.

Yes the Gulf states amount other places are built upon slave labor, massive inequalities and repression. For the rich and the natives that's great but for the majority, those places are terrible. It's like saying pre 1960 American south was great. Ye sit was nice to be rich and white there but being poor and especially black was awful.

 

[woodguyatl]

If the mosque insists on sticking to tradition by having the adhan despite not being in a Muslim neighborhood then they should do it the old fashioned way with just the human voice and no electronic amplification which would limit how far it can be heard. But the 40 houses should still be consulted for other reasons(making sure the design of the mosque is agreeable to nearby residents, sorting out issues of parking and so on).

Would you also prohibit churches from using speakers in their bell towers instead of actual bells?

Given all the Religious Liberty bills being passed, at least here in the South, if issues arrive many communities will have painted themselves into a corner.

 

[Fluffernutter]

I don't hear church bells on Sunday anymore. Is that still a thing?