Daniel Streich Swiss Politician Bans Minarets then reverts to Islam. The Swiss politician Daniel Streich, who rose to fame as a result of his opposition to mosques in his homeland, has now embraced the faith he reviled.

Daniel Streich was a member of the Swiss People's Party (SVP) in Switzerland. A well-known politician, Streich led the calls for a ban on minarets across Switzerland. He was active in building anti-Muslim sentiments throughout Switzerland. This sustained campaign led to him being given a high ranking position in the Swiss Army.

Switzerland Minaret Ban and Daniel Streich

Streich was an important member of the Swiss People's Party (SVP). His importance could be estimated from his influence on party's policy making, in which he always had a prominent role. His movement against minarets was aimed at gaining political attention and interest. He won the slot of military instructor in the Swiss Army due to his popularity.He was also committed to his party (SVP) and stood as a local politician in the commune of Bulle.

Daniel Streich Conversion to Islam
Streich attempted to understand the Qur'an and Islamic teachings in order to argue against Muslims on tenets of their faith. In the course of his efforts the ex-Christian began to agree with and acknowledge the proclamations of the Qur'an.

Born in a Christian family, Streich had a comprehensive study of Islam merely to malign and confront, but Islamic teachings had a deep impact on him. Eventually he de-linked himself from political activities and he embraced Islam. Streich has termed the SVO activities against the Muslims as satanic.

He says that he used to read the Bible and often went to chapel, but now he recites the Holy Quran and offers his prayers five times a day. He further says that he cancelled his party membership and made public his reversion. Streich says that he has found the truth of life in Islam, which he could not find in Christianity.

"Islam offers me logical answers to important life questions, which, in the end, I never found in Christianity," says Streich. He is now a committed Muslim, who attends the mosque, recites the Qur'an and prays five times a day.

According to figures from the Union of Islamic Organizations and Communities, some 3,000 to 5,000 Italians have recently converted to Islam from Catholicism.

Post-Conversion Life for Daniel Streich
Recently the question of ban on minarets was put to voting in Switzerland, wherein the Swiss nationals gave the issue a legal status.

As per voting results 42.5 per cent people voted in favour of the minarets and 57.5 per cent supported the ban, while the Muslim population in Switzerland is only 6 per cent. The most wondrous thing in this regard, therefore, is the support of 42.5 per cent of population for only six percent Muslims. The analysts claim that ban on minarets and Islamic rituals has attracted the people towards Islam.

Streich has now focused his intentions on participating in the building of the new Conservative Democratic Party in the canton of Freiburg. Freich's new movement is in contrast to his previous one and he aims to promote religious tolerance and peaceful cooperative living, in spite of the fact that ban on mosques minarets has gained a legal status.

He is vehemently opposed to the Minaret ban and is hoping to establish Switzerland's fifth mosque and the most beautiful in Europe.

May Allah Guide others::

^It is a lie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Streich

We this Muslims with our wahala, we keep getting people converted to Islam.

[size=14pt]‘We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth…’ [Holy Quran 41:53][/size]

Can he deconvert without liability?

Most All Islamic States (plus Ottoman empire) are not peaceful or religiously tolerant. Why would muslims expect others to make such compromise?

Kay 17:

Can he deconvert without liability?

Most All Islamic States (plus Ottoman empire) are not peaceful or religiously tolerant. Why would muslims expect others to make such compromise?

in the case of this politician,he is in switzerland.so if he doesn't see the truth in Islam,i dont see how he would remain a muslim in the west.he isn't in a muslim country for you to even hint about anyone being "forced" to be muslim.

also,regarding those muslim countries you are talking about,there are laws which must be respected.in those countries,no one would come into your house and ask you how many times you have prayed a day if you dont want to pray 5 daily prayers as muslims do.so really faith is a personal choice in the heart.the problem comes in when the choice of the heart becomes a political tool.the issue about conversions in muslim countries or even the world over isnt about personal freedom.it is about politics and the society.many christians want to proselytize in muslim countries not to "save" people but to politicize the issue and win converts into christianity and then use that to cast doubt in the mind of the people and use that politically.in muslim countries that is not allowed.also,when you have a regime that takes its legitimacy from being an "islamic regime",you cant expect it being undermined or rather conversions being used to create confusion in mind of people to instigate doubt.if people convert for the reason of "saving" themselves,then why do christians politicize it in muslim countries"

in the west for instance,christianity is not what gives the regimes legitimacy to a large extent.so people can afford to not only change faith and believe what they believe in their hearts,but also publicize it.

the below is what i have being saying on the issue of apostacy and Islam:

when talking about punishment for apostacy in islam,the death penalty is not prescribed as punishment in the Quran.there is no killing for apostacy.this issue is controversial even in islamic circles.that is my personal take on the issue.i believe capital punishment for apostacy is a judeo-christian tradition found in the bible where "everyone should be stoned" literally.however,if a law exists somewhere,then it must be respected.we know how you must behave as a roman when in rome.it is part of iranian law that proselythization is a criminal act.then dont go there doing it.that also does not mean that iran does not respect or protect its minorities among them christians who have being there for about 2000 years.

this is the take of the Quran:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects Taghut and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." [2:256]


"Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path."[4:137].

if (4:137),if a person is to be killed for apostacy,then how can he believe again after he disbelieves?

another point i would like to add is the politicization of converts and conversions.nobody whether in Iran would come to ask if you are muslim or christian.if you believe in christianity then do that for the sake of God if you believe that pleases God.publicizing it is aimed at making political statements and creating unnecessary attention apart from simply being interested in worshipping the god you have at heart.also,i personally believe when you live somewhere you must be law abiding.

Kay 17:

Can he deconvert without liability?

I did not know Switzerland runs on the sharia, as we know clearly it is a secular country, hence deconverting would not be a problem, this clearly shows the illogical nature of your question, I am yet to hear muslims who leave Islam being killed in the west!

Most All Islamic States (plus Ottoman empire) are not peaceful or religiously tolerant. Why would muslims expect others to make such compromise?

I think you are either confused or hardly have a grasped of what you are talking about, Does the Ottoman empire still exist? make rational arguement that is the only way we can progress. thanks.

Insert Quote
Daniel Streich reason for converting : Streich was founding member and president of the Gruyères section of the party from 2003 to 2007. His followed conversion to Islam in 2005, before which he was a devout Catholic, with one of his given explanations on this conversion is that this newly discovered religion offered him "logical answers to important life questions". [/b]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Streich


it is very clear that those who legally rational and logical are following the true path that is [b]Islam

Kay 17:

Can he deconvert without liability?

Most All Islamic States (plus Ottoman empire) are not peaceful or religiously tolerant. Why would muslims expect others to make such compromise?

I give a few quotes of people who actually lived under muslim rule:

The famous letter from a Rabbi, after Europe’s persecution of the Jews, found in Phillip Mansel’s book “Constantinople ”, reflect this how the Jews for instance were under the muslims,

“Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap and every one of us lives in peace and freedom…”[Philip Mansel. 1995. Constantinople : City of the World’s desire, 1453-1924. Penguin Books, p. 15]

Ulick R. Burke, a prominent historian specializing in the history of Spain, reached a similar conclusion,

“Christians did not suffer in any way, on account of their religion, at the hands of Moors…not only perfect toleration but nominal equality was the rule of the Arabs in Spain.’[Ulick R. Burke, A History of Spain , London , 1900, Vol I, P. 129.]

Thomas Arnold, commenting on an Islamic source, states that,

“…the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims, saying, ‘May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious over the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us.’” [T. W. Arnold , Preaching of Islam, London , 1913, P. 61]


Heinrich Graetz, a 19th century Jewish historian expressed the ‘favourable circumstances’ under Islamic rule,

“It was in these favourable circumstances that the Spanish Jews came under the rule of Mahometans, as whose allies they esteemed themselves the equals of their co-religionists in Babylonia and Persia. They were kindly treated, obtained religious liberty, of which they had so long been deprived, were permitted to exercise jurisdiction over their co-religionists…”[H. Graetz, History of the Jews, London , 1892, Vol 3, P. 112]

Zion Zohar, a Jewish Historian, expressed similar sentiments in his book ‘Sephardic & Mizrahi Jewry’:

“Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution.”[Zion Zohar, Sephardic & Mizrahi Jewry, New York, 2005, P. 8-9]

the early testimonies of Christian leadership. Ishoyabth who was patriarch from AD 647 to 657, writes,

“The Arabs, to who God gave the dominion over the world, behave to us as you know. They are not hostile to Christianity, but praise our religion, honour priests and saints, and help the Churches and Monastries.”[Caliph and their non-Muslim subjects: A critical study of the covenant of Umar. A. S. Tritton. Routledge Library Editions: Islam. 2008, p. 138-139]

Bernard the Wise, a pilgrim monk, visited Egypt and Palestine in the reign of Caliph al-Mu’tazz (866-9 CE). He stated that,

“…the Christians and the Pagans [i.e. Muslims] have this kind of peace between them there that if I was going on a journey, and on the way the camel or donkey which bore my poor luggage were to die, and I was to abandon all my goods without any guardian, and go to the city for another pack animal, when I came back, I would find all my property uninjured: such is the peace there.”[Christopher J. Walker, Islam and the West, Gloucester , 2005, P. 17.]

Adam Smith, the 18th century founding father of the modern capitalism, explains the impact of Islamic rule,

“The ruin of the empire of the Romans, and, along with it the subversion of all law and order, which happened a few centuries afterwards, produced the entire neglect of that study of the connecting principles of nature, to which leisure and security can alone give occasion. After the fall of those great conquerors and the civilizers of mankind, the empire of the Caliphs seems to have been the first state under which the world enjoyed that degree of tranquility which the cultivation of the sciences requires. It was under the protection of those generous and magnificent princes, that the ancient philosophy and astronomy of the Greeks were restored and established in the East; that tranquility, which their mild, just and religious government diffused over their vast empire, revived the curiosity of mankind, to inquire into the connecting principles of nature.” {The Essays of Adam Smith, London , 1869, P. 353.]





.

also,regarding those muslim countries you are talking about,there are laws which must be respected.in those countries,no one would come into your house and ask you how many times you have prayed a day if you dont want to pray 5 daily prayers as muslims do.so really faith is a personal choice in the heart.the problem comes in when the choice of the heart becomes a political tool.the issue about conversions in muslim countries or even the world over isnt about personal freedom.it is about politics and the society.many christians want to proselytize in muslim countries not to "save" people but to politicize the issue and win converts into christianity and then use that to cast doubt in the mind of the people and use that politically.in muslim countries that is not allowed.also,when you have a regime that takes its legitimacy from being an "islamic regime",you cant expect it being undermined or rather conversions being used to create confusion in mind of people to instigate doubt.if people convert for the reason of "saving" themselves,then why do christians politicize it in muslim countries"

Laws don't stand in isolation, they also go through rational scrutiny and moral assessment. Where laws are described as good or bad and where it derives bits of legitimacy. The murderous laws of Hitler's regime which dwelt on the dehumanization of sections of society lost its power in law and precedent after the fall of the Nazis. Up until today, Nazi laws which involved cruelty are considered illegitimate, because they violated a basic common morals.

Same in this case, an individual is entitled and should be free to choose and freely exercise all the elements of his faith EXCEPT where it threatens a foundational human right of another (life). In the event of the State involving itself in matters of individual conscience, it becomes tyranny. Like the Soviet State.

Being a Christian involves an inherent duty to propagate the good news and failure to do so has it celestial pains. In other words, incidents of the right to thought, involves spreading and propagating it.

If the Islamic State needs to bar free thought to exist, then it doesn't tolerate free thought and its necessarily tryant. And claiming to protect its people from other faiths and ideologies suggests a totalitarian State holding its population in mental prison in order to maintain its legitimacy. Probably there shouldn't be Islamic states because of the individual sacrifices his mind for its legitimacy.

@Tbaba

The Christians were however worse than the Muslims in religious tolerance. But Islamic states didn't give Christians and Jews full rights of a citizen. They were seen as inferior subjects, they had no representation or access to the highest levels of government. No christian is known to have headed an Islamic State. Their laws were held in abeyance upon conflict with Sharia. Sharia governed matters btw a kaffir and a believer.

Besides the Prophet executed 700 Jews of Bani Qurayza, in Medina. "Upon the Ottoman victory over Christian Serbs at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, the Muslim army beheaded the Serbian king and scores of Christian prisoners"

"In 1456, the sultan allowed the grand mufti of the empire to personally decapitate King Stephen of Bosnia and his sons—even though they had surrendered and, seven decades later, the sultan ordered 2,000 Hungarian prisoners beheaded"

"An Eastern Orthodox Patriarch has also been beheaded"

Can some one tell me why this is not on major news yet or even on FRONTPAGE yet?

Yet, when he was campaigning for ban of minarahs he was interviewed by almost all news directly or indirectly, but now that HE HAS EMBRACED THAT WHICH HE DENIED every body just went dumb!

Kay 17:

@Tbaba

The Christians were however worse than the Muslims in religious tolerance. But Islamic states didn't give Christians and Jews full rights of a citizen. They were seen as inferior subjects, they had no representation or access to the highest levels of government. No christian is known to have headed an Islamic State. Their laws were held in abeyance upon conflict with Sharia. Sharia governed matters btw a kaffir and a believer.

Besides the Prophet executed 700 Jews of Bani Qurayza, in Medina. "Upon the Ottoman victory over Christian Serbs at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, the Muslim army beheaded the Serbian king and scores of Christian prisoners"

"In 1456, the sultan allowed the grand mufti of the empire to personally decapitate King Stephen of Bosnia and his sons—even though they had surrendered and, seven decades later, the sultan ordered 2,000 Hungarian prisoners beheaded"

"An Eastern Orthodox Patriarch has also been beheaded"

Again, you display your ignorance, Jews and Christians served in several offical positions in the time of the ottoman,

Do you even know what bani qurayza did They chose their judge and were judged according to jewish laws: Their laws not islamic laws. and only the guilty were punished.

So let us summarize everything we have:

-The prophet Muhammad was in a treaty with the Qurayza tribe

-The Qurayza tribe broke the treaty

-Once they broke the treaty they were liable for a punishment

-The Qurayza are not innocent

-The prophet Muhammad made Sa'd the leader who would pronounce judgement over the Quryaza tribe

-The prophet did this at the request of the Al-Aus tribe, an ally of Qurayza

-Sa'd a former Jew judged the Banu Qurayza by their own Torah, from Deuteronomy 20

So when you put all of this together, we see that no crime was committed, and that the Qurayza tribe are far from innocent, and that the prophet Muhammad didn't kill them just for the sake of being Jewish,

As regards the other executions?? I do not know the full details::: I can't vouch for every sultan but the fact is that Islam as a whole had a great impact and promoted justice in its lands.

Please read a good book on islamic history particularly in medievial times and learn.


You are giving me instances without a

At kay17 as the Quran alludes you cant force a blid man to see. But I will try to answer your concerns to the best of my knowledge and Allah knows best.

Christain citizenship

Now the idea of second class citizens is an invention of some. Also noteworthy is the fact that you can't use today's political ideals as lenses to look into history. In the Islamic empires and Jews  were infact encouraged to judge by their books (see Quran) so no sharia was imposed on anybody, and it is only logical that state laws were applied in matters between Muslims and non Muslims. Also the taxes christains payed was minimal and less when compared to what 'first class' citizens - Muslims, had to pay in form of zakaat. And these taxes on christains and Jews were meant for the protection and other social packages they enjoyed under the state, and infact in war times it was the Muslims who have to go out and defend the teritories and not the chriatain and Jews.

Banu Qurayzah

The Muslims were Under siege from outside forces, madinah was surrounded by the non Muslim forces. In madinah when the Muslims first arrived they had signed a treaties with the major tribes in madinah to live in peace and defend against external aggressors. Now banu qurazah, a Jewish tribe in madinah plotted from within to defeat the Muslims, and ally with the external forces camped outside madinah. Now in any country that is treason and punishable with the harshest punishment (just this week Eric holder said any american that plots to kill Americans can be executed by the government). So banu Qurayzah were purnished for their treason and not because they were Jews.

Christain citizenship

Now the idea of second class citizens is an invention of some. Also noteworthy is the fact that you can't use today's political ideals as lenses to look into history. In the Islamic empires and Jews  were infact encouraged to judge by their books (see Quran) so no sharia was imposed on anybody, and it is only logical that state laws were applied in matters between Muslims and non Muslims. Also the taxes christains payed was minimal and less when compared to what 'first class' citizens - Muslims, had to pay in form of zakaat. And these taxes on christains and Jews were meant for the protection and other social packages they enjoyed under the state, and infact in war times it was the Muslims who have to go out and defend the teritories and not the chriatain and Jews

Its oppressive to subject and bind people to the most unfamiliar laws, its like judging a pagan in a Christian court and under Christian laws. Its ridiculous. Citizenship is the bundle of rights enjoyed as a result of participation in the affairs of the State. Participation is both a duty and a right, Christian and Jewish exemption is as a result of being distrusted. The Islamic state didn't feel they were loyal enough to enjoy the privilege and duty of being honoured as a protector of the State. Also these second class citizens paid jizya which is discriminatory and indicates submission to the Islamic state. Refusal to pay triggers punishment such death sentence. At times they are excessive.

An Islamic State can not be a proper platform for multiculturalism, its abides to arachic laws and inflexible to change. Its too violent also.

Banu Qurayzah

The Muslims were Under siege from outside forces, madinah was surrounded by the non Muslim forces. In madinah when the Muslims first arrived they had signed a treaties with the major tribes in madinah to live in peace and defend against external aggressors. Now banu qurazah, a Jewish tribe in madinah plotted from within to defeat the Muslims, and ally with the external forces camped outside madinah. Now in any country that is treason and punishable with the harshest punishment (just this week Eric holder said any american that plots to kill Americans can be executed by the government). So banu Qurayzah were purnished for their treason and not because they were Jews.

Yes, almost all States in the world penalize treason with death. However in Bani Qurayza's case, they had a treaty with Muhammad's State; that is they were not under the Muslim rule or law, it was an agreement between states. And violation of such treaty results to war not a genocide! Treason as defined under Muslim law is inapplicable to them, since they were not under the State.

Moreover, the Bani had SURRENDERED, were unarmed and at the mercy of the Muslims. They were more or less prisoners of war, and treatment under Muslim hand was barbaric!

@Tbaba

The Prophet showed approval of such barbaric law to kill all the full grown men and sell off all children and women into slavery. That's not the Buddhists or adherents of Jainism do. It was mindless murder and was unjustified!

You know absolutely nothing about this case::

1. Madinah was a muslim state as there were under a constitution, not separate states: and under the constitution they committed a punishable offence.

2. If bani qurayza had succeeded, everyone in amdinah would have been killed or captured:: There were already surrounded by ten thousand of the Quraish and there was an inside group trying to destroy them

3. That by any account is treason:

4. Everyone in Madinah were subject to their Law:

You seem to forget that they were judged by Jewish law not muslim law,

This will be my last comment on this issue: Again read all i wrote and think::

Lol! This is outrageous. Jews had their leaders, own societal structures and territory within Medinah, the sole link between cooperation between the Muslims and Jews was the treaty and as such an agreement btw TWO states. Wherein both states keep their laws. The treaty is similar to those struck by the Muslims with other tribes and clans,

Deutoronmy 20 provides for cases of war and in particular cases of siege warfare NOT treason.

Also, treason is applicable to particular persons not blanket punishment like selling into slavery women and children.

@ Kay I no fit talk much, but seriously take off your googles of 'modern political ideals' and perhaps you will see through history more clearer.

Unfamiliar laws What do you call the Muslims been made to take off veils? Familiar laws ( but then u will try to justify it, and I will say let's cut the semantic gymnastic crap- so let's not go there)

The Muslims pay zakaat, the christains and Jew pay jzyah, both to the state. So what's discriminatory. (that I will be taxed higher in Britain as a Nigerian compared to brits is not discriminatory, but taxing non Muslims lower than Muslim under Muslim state is ) guy cut the crap.

All I'm saying is Isalmic states are for muslims, not for pagans, Christians or Jews. They are not designed to meet and satisfy the needs of multiculturalism. It biased and discriminatory to other faiths. since its foundation is on Islam and religion is a conscientious sphere, it becomes malignant tool of oppression.

Matters which are opening up to reforms, such as extensive women rights, abortion, homosexuality atheism, independence of science would be closed and perceived narrowly from a conservative islam point of view.

I'm not against Islam or its prophet, I'm against Islamic States, because they are more or less machines of terror.

Did you derive this conclusion from facts, or imagined facts out of such conclusion? For in as much as you keep on evaluating Islam and by extension history with preconceived biases, then am afraid my friend that you will always be wrong in both facts and what you infere therefrom.

The quintessential Islamic empire of old (note not the hybrid, pick and choose Muslim states of today) had remained the most cosmopolitan society in the then world, not even contemporary Europe of it's time could show it any thing about ideals and sciences, or even diversity. Read about when women were granted even the basic right of inheritance Europe, while their counterparts in the Islamic world enjoyed such already for almost a millennium earlier. Read about the history of religious diversity of the holy land under the Muslims  and compare it to what it was under the crusaders. Read of the multiculturalism of andalusia(Spain) under muslims then compare it to what it was under christains (no mosque was left standing).

So guy read and stop this silly conclusions, and I repeat u can't judge the past with the ideals of present.

Kay 17:

Laws don't stand in isolation, they also go through rational scrutiny and moral assessment. Where laws are described as good or bad and where it derives bits of legitimacy. The murderous laws of Hitler's regime which dwelt on the dehumanization of sections of society lost its power in law and precedent after the fall of the Nazis. Up until today, Nazi laws which involved cruelty are considered illegitimate, because they violated a basic common morals.

how does this have any significance to what i said or to Islam? you could compare Nazi laws to laws found in the bible's old testament.so please,dont dig your own grave here.

Same in this case, an individual is entitled and should be free to choose and freely exercise all the elements of his faith EXCEPT where it threatens a foundational human right of another (life). In the event of the State involving itself in matters of individual conscience, it becomes tyranny. Like the Soviet State.

if i decide to become a buddhist today,if all i care about is following buddhism i dont think i have to go on TV in an islamic state to announce that buddhism is the way.if the majority of people under an islamic regime would get offended by that and their law is against that,then i follow what i believe would win me salvation and keep my peace.if what i have chosen is really the truth,then let the majority of people in islamic states follow that path.by the time you have 20% of people following that path in a country like saudi arabia with a population of about 30 million,then we are talking here of about 6 million people.so even if they march and protest,they have the right to do that.but you dont find one person every decade converting into christianity and you suddenly want a church to be built in the holiest place of Islam.in my opinion,you are mentally sick.

Being a Christian involves an inherent duty to propagate the good news and failure to do so has it celestial pains. In other words, incidents of the right to thought, involves spreading and propagating it.

so how does propagating your bad "good news" got anything to do with someone changing his faith in an islamic state and then making adverts to undermine the society and its islamic fabric?are there no tv channels,internet and radio stations that do that? i see that as foolish for someone to change his faith in saudi arabia or afghanistan and then attempt to change others publicly by questioning the beliefs of the majority in an holy land.that is a way of inciting others and provoking them.we saw in america how an atheist was threatened by christians for objecting that prayers be said in a graduation ceremony.funny people!

If the Islamic State needs to bar free thought to exist, then it doesn't tolerate free thought and its necessarily tryant. And claiming to protect its people from other faiths and ideologies suggests a totalitarian State holding its population in mental prison in order to maintain its legitimacy. Probably there shouldn't be Islamic states because of the individual sacrifices his mind for its legitimacy

you are mixing things up.allowing misguided folks free hand to do things that others see offensive does not mean there is no free thought.Islam calls on muslims to think,ponder and compare.

i am not here defending wahhabi saudi arabia which to my knowledge is not an islamic state but a dictatorial monarchy based on religious extremism and intolerance of wahhabism.

nevertheless,i dont see how allowing missionaries do their schemes amount to "free thought".

the shia population of saudi arabia is about 25% and they are oppressed in many ways.however even at that,you still find saudis who abandon sunni wahhabism for SHIA ISLAM daily.so really laws can put things in a particular order.but laws cannot stop people from thinking and finding out and changing beliefs.

if your beliefs are reasonable,and based on facts and the truth,then you really have nothing to fear.but obviously the christian missionary is like "chewing gum boys" who flirt with young girls in return giving them sweet or chewing gum.you people deceive the gullible and the not-so-knowledgeable and the unsuspecting and even use material gifts to impress them in return for abandoning their faith into christianity.shameless fraud!

To some religions like Christianity; propagation is like the muezzin's call. Outlawing that is removing a fundamental ritual and duty.

The Islamic states can't claim to protect its people from INFORMATION! If they are free societies, then information should be accessible all.

Also if islamic laws are made on the whims of the majority of the muslims, then its not a country to live. If majority of the Swiss don't want minarets or Korans or Islam, that's enough to start a jihad right?

Muhammad's main grievance with the Meccans was preventing from worshipping and destroying the idols at the Kaabah

Kay 17:

To some religions like Christianity; propagation is like the muezzin's call. Outlawing that is removing a fundamental ritual and duty.

ive never heard christians propagating from a minaret though.so may be you should tell us how the two are "alike".

The Islamic states can't claim to protect its people from INFORMATION! If they are free societies, then information should be accessible all.

maintaining a way of order or norm in the society is by no means limiting information.every muslim at least knows that christians deify Jesus.knowing that is one thing and calling muslim society to do that is another thing entirely which in an islamic setting is blasphemy against God.

Also if islamic laws are made on the whims of the majority of the muslims, then its not a country to live. If majority of the Swiss don't want minarets or Korans or Islam, that's enough to start a jihad right?

Islamic laws are not made from what the majority desire.Islamic laws are based on the Quran first and foremost.this entire argument is being based on the saudi case.in muslim countries the christian minorities are given their right to freedom of worship.in Iran for instance,a quota of seats in parliament are reserved for christians and jews to ensure their representation.

Muhammad's main grievance with the Meccans was preventing from worshipping and destroying the idols at the Kaabah

that only shows ignorance.the idols in the Ka'bah were infringing on the right of Muslims to the Ka'bah and the worship of One God-The Almighty Creator.the Ka'bah was built not to store idols.idols in the Ka'bah is an aberration.

Good for Mr Daniel and his new found faith.

He is fortunate to be in a country like Switzerland where the state guarantees his rights to freedom of faith.

I wonder what will happen to the head of the religious Police in say Iran converts to say Christianity? will the state guarantee his rights to this basic freedom? In fact ordinary citizens like Pastor Ndarkhani in Iran are facing severe punishment for the crime of changing their faith.

I think its a fundamental question that is not being addressed by Islamic countries. And unfortunately many try to justify the lack of freedoms or see concerns being raised as an attack on Islam. Or deny such exist giving some medieval examples - that are exceptions than the norm - in contrast to a modern problem. Kays 17 points highlights some of these restrictions.

If Muslims want to fully practice their faith, of course by all means, even in so called western "Christian" countries these freedoms are guaranteed. But why is that not reciprocated? For example as Kay states sharing the gospel is a fundamental tenet of Christianity while certain norms like congregational worship, dietary laws, dressing etc are the way of life of Muslims. If Islam is getting that as part of fundamental rights of Muslims in other countries, why are the same rights not extended to others in Islamic countries even putting Saudi (holy land) aside? its not just Christianity but others including minority islamic sects.


Unfortunately this is part of what is fueling the misunderstanding (if it is) of what Islam is and what it stands for.

And unfortunately too many Muslims don't address this issue frontally but skirt around it either going off point, or "that religion does it too" kind of answers, further fueling misgivings.

i dont know why people like comparing apples to oranges.

comparing the laws in Iran or any muslim country to that of switzerland or any western country,does not do any good to christianity or gives it credit.

those western countries apply secular (non-christian) laws.that is why you see that changing religion is that easy.but when you have a state with a religious regime,that take its legitimacy from religion,you definitely wouldn't have the sort of christian missionaries attempting to undermine islamic society through bribery and corruption for converts.

i think these points have already being made clear.

.