Marocc

What did I just read.

I would not compare those two. They serve two different purposes. That kind of logic might not be smart here. You never know when that one thing you like to do ends up on the list of not essential. Going to the grocery store 4 times a week is not essential, but some want to go. Going to get your teeth cleaned is not essential, but some want to go. Skate boarding in a group of four is not essential, but some want to go. There is a long list of things that can yet be deemed not essential. If one isn't going to deem all that is not essential as not essential, it isn't irrelevant which kind of things one chooses to deem not essential.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-20/defying-state-order-thousands-of-pastors-say-they-plan-to-hold-in-person-services-for-the-pentecost One thousand and two hundred pastors have signed a 'Declaration of Essentiality' postulating that churches are 'as essential as any grocery or hardware store' which are allowed to remain active. "By Wednesday, many counties in California had received approval to reopen establishments — retail business, office buildings, restaurants, shopping centers — as permitted in the second phase of Newsom’s plan to restart the state economy. Churches are not allowed to reopen until the plan’s third phase."

If it claims to portray a particular living individual, it is a definite violation of that individual's rights.

I believe they have in mind something more specific. In fact, I find it amazing some people have difficulty in pronouncing their ideas clearly, while they have no problem supporting gross, clearly expressed ideas. Can the difficulty be caused by shame or the fear of being exposed somehow? You didn't address my question about how 'the rest' were neglected.

I really do not know.

Who's 'the rest' here and how were they neglected?

I know. I have read it from the Quran and if you want to know more, you can read it too.

The western nations are not more developed because the people are having less children, but they are having less children because the nations are more developed. 1 baby born in the US spends 100 times more of the earth's resources than 1 baby born in Bangladesh.

That's still partly the fault of capitalism.

It might require understanding of the damage sociopaths can do, to not use sarcasm when referring to it. Anyway, sarcasm in writing is lazy.

Do sociopaths come up with original ideas? Isn't it more likely they simply do what other people can't due to embarrassment and shame? Is their money honest? I would rather live in the forest with a toilet outside than steal money and potentially ruin countless of lives.

The greatest sin is Shirk; associating partners to God. If you say of people that they are going to hell, though God has not said so, you are saying what you don't know.

Still more subtle to the general population, isn't it?

And where does Capitalism lead to?

That's a pathetic excuse. No to the former, yes to the latter. I do not cover my face. The command is from God. Clothes don't prevent a woman from going outside nor from going to work. Succumbing to the glitter of the material world, that is. What would prevent her from "functioning" properly while behaving like a Muslim?

Like the mask wearers?

It is explicitly mentioned in the hadiths for one. I can't say anything about the Quran. For example: "Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wearing thin clothes. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to his face and hands. Abu Dawud said: This is a mursal tradition (i.e. the narrator who transmitted it from 'Aishah is missing) Khalid b. Duraik did not see 'Aishah." https://sunnah.com/abudawud/34/85

If you, when discussing racism in Canada, put less focus on the targets of the racism, the discussion could have little focus on Islam or on any particular nationality. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/04/27/one-in-5-canadians-think-its-not-safe-to-sit-beside-an-asian-person-on-the-bus-according-to-recent-poll.html "The poll was conducted just days after Vancouver police reported what it described as a “racially motivated and despicable” attack on a 92-year old man who was assaulted and shoved to the ground outside a convenience store. That incident is only one in a long list of examples of coronavirus-related racism in Canada, said Go." "And in a poll conducted in mid-March, Research Co. found three in five Canadians believe it is unacceptable to refer to COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus.”"

If I did, what would be the difference between me proselytising Islam and you proselytising Atheism?

Because you were talking about Catholism. You made a comparison between religious leadership and an atheist leadership. I pointed out the leader at the time of establishing the roots of Catholism, the leader was a disbeliever. You went on to say how Christianity began. You don't want to talk about Catholism, do you? Catholism is a name of a Christian denomination. If you use the term the way it was used when the New Testament was written, may be, but in today's world and today's language, as you should know, it isn't so. Not the same at all, imo. Papal infallibility is not even close to meaning infallibility in general. Mostly to point out the errors in your logic. No person can be consider infallible. It comes with the very definition of being human, that one is fallible. 1) Not 'religious leaders' in general have anything to do with this infallibility idea. 2) They don't derive their power from it if they did support themselves it. 3) This doesn't fit to Iran since no such Imam is alive now who could possibly be considered infallible. It is it the leaders of that country who claim to be infallible. (If any of the imams actually claimed to be so themselves.)

Nor did I ever say they did. Your reading comprehension isn't much better from what it was last year.

This was never a debate to begin with. I asked a simple question about racism I Canada. Majority of you rushed first to deny there is a problem and then you began competing, apparently, on who can express the most racistic sentiments.

I believe munkar means something evil or detestable. Some examples of Un-Islamic acts are stealing, fornicating, killing unjustly and usury.

"Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islam), enjoining Al-Ma‘roof (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden). And it is they who are the successful. [Surah Âl ‘Imrân, 3:104]" https://aljumuah.com/only-allah-can-judge-me/ "Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of Dawood (David) and Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). That was because they disobeyed (Allah and the Messengers) and were ever transgressing beyond bounds. They used not to forbid one another from Al–Munkar (wrong, evildoing, sins, polytheism, disbelief) which they committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do. [Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:78]" "Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq narrates, I heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) say, “When people see something objectionable and do not change it, Allah will soon include them all in His punishment. (Al-Tirmidhi)" "Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said If you see a munkar (un-islamic act), you change it with your hand; and if you cannot do that, then change it with your mouth (speak out against it); and if you cannot do [even] that, then forbid it in your heart — and that is the least of belief. (Muslim)"