Latvia to ban Islamic veils

[Teemant]

People in Europe don't cover their faces in public space but you don't want to accept that.

NON-MUSLIMS IN EUROPE don't cover their faces in public. Some Muslim women in Europe do. How do you always get that mixed up? No offense.

That shows that you don't want to accept European social norms and want Europeans and muslims treated differently. If Europeans can't cover their face in public then muslims or people who belive in any other religion can't do it either.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I actually support this Ban. We dont wear religious Clothing in the west. and they should god damn learn it!

Westerners do wear religious clothing ex: nuns, shirts with religious symbols/sayings, etc. This isn't clothing, but cross necklaces are common.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

NON-MUSLIMS IN EUROPE don't cover their faces in public. Some Muslim women in Europe do. How do you always get that mixed up? No offense.

That shows that you don't want to accept European social norms and want Europeans and muslims treated differently. If Europeans can't cover their face in public then muslims or people who belive in any other religion can't do it either.

What? I don't even understand what your saying. Islam isn't a culture. It's a religion. It's not that Europeans can't cover their faces, it's that they don't because they aren't Muslims. There are things Christians do and certain things Muslims do. Wearing niqab is what some Muslims do.

[Herargon]

There, are Muslim countries. And yes, Islam spreading to other countries is wrong. If it was a peaceful branch of Islam, nothing wrong with that - as long as the people having that religion completely assimilate in the culture of the country they immigrate to. However, nowadays, a significant part immigrants from the Middle East are radicalised due to the , and thus certainly they follow a violent branch of Islam. That is not good, and therefore immigration has to be completely limited.

Also:
You're saying: Muslims may spread to other countries.
But also: 'Christianity does not have to spread to other countries'.
I'm attacking the post, not you, but know, try not to be contradictory to yourself. It makes your own argumentation much weaker, to be honest.

The Christianity thing was a scenario. And a really small minority follows the radical Islamic branch anyways. And no, they aren't Islamic countries if they cut people's heads off, cut off hands and hang people. Islam doesn't permit that.

Strange that cutting off heads, cutting off hands and hanging people are mentioned in the Quran as a valid way of punishment for being against Islam then.
I suggest you read the link and especially its quotes.

If they aren't islamic countries, then how come there are islamic peoples? There is no such notion as a 'correct' Islam, nor an 'incorrect' Islam.
Islam is a form of thinking and living, a religion and part of a culture. To deny that is to deny one's own existence if you were to be a Muslim.

The Christianity thing isn't even a scenario. It did happen in the past.
I wouldn't call around 200,000 fighters in ISIL a 'small minority', nor the Taliban, Nusra, -Qaeda small parties. They are really big organisations.

Now, back to my post. Have you read it entirely, including the update?


EDIT: Also, still, only 200 fighters can cause much trouble. Think about the five fighters in Paris. Two hundred deaths. That is not something to underestimate.
Meanwhile, Christianity has much fewer ''crusaders'' (if you even could consider them so) today. Only Joseph Kony comes to mind, but that's around it.
Most of - if not, all - of these people were innocent, had a flourishing live, were just people that lived their lives. And these lives are now over, by a few Islamic bombers.
That is not something to be proud of, nor to be uncaring about. Every live has a value, and if my, your, or anybody's live were to end, what do you think you would find about that if your end was coming before you? I don't think you would not care, nor that you would like it. Neither would the families of the victims like to hear their beloved ones have died.
It thus is completely understandable that they vote against radicalism, against Islamism. If a Christian suddenly were to bomb in Turkey, it also would be understandable if people voted against it.
Not that I would find it to be fine if people were suddenly lynching Muslims. No, it's just that I understand their reasons, not that I suddenly approve.
Do you approve of being allowed to life a live, without fear, and such? I think so. So do most normal people.

[Teemant]

That shows that you don't want to accept European social norms and want Europeans and muslims treated differently. If Europeans can't cover their face in public then muslims or people who belive in any other religion can't do it either.

What? I don't even understand what your saying. Islam isn't a culture. It's a religion. It's not that Europeans can't cover their faces, it's that they don't because they aren't Muslims. There are things Christians do and certain things Muslims do. Wearing niqab is what some Muslims do.

Not covering ones face in public has nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. The reason is that people must be identifiable in public.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The Christianity thing was a scenario. And a really small minority follows the radical Islamic branch anyways. And no, they aren't Islamic countries if they cut people's heads off, cut off hands and hang people. Islam doesn't permit that.

Strange that cutting off heads, cutting off hands and hanging people are mentioned in the Quran as a valid way of punishment for being against Islam then.
I suggest you read the link and especially its quotes.

If they aren't islamic countries, then how come there are islamic peoples? There is no such notion as a 'correct' Islam, nor an 'incorrect' Islam.
Islam is a form of thinking and living, a religion and part of a culture. To deny that is to deny one's own existence if you were to be a Muslim.

The Christianity thing isn't even a scenario. It did happen in the past.
I wouldn't call around 200,000 fighters in ISIL a 'small minority', nor the Taliban, Nusra, -Qaeda small parties. They are really big organisations.

Now, back to my post. Have you read it entirely, including the update?


EDIT: Also, still, only 200 fighters can cause much trouble. Think about the five fighters in Paris. Two hundred deaths. That is not something to underestimate.
Most of - if not, all - of these people were innocent, had a flourishing live, were just people that lived their lives. And these lives are now over, by a few Islamic bombers.
That is not something to be proud of, nor to be uncaring about. Every live has a value, and if my, your, or anybody's live were to end, what do you think you would find about that if your end was coming before you? I don't think you would not care, nor that you would like it. Neither would the families of the victims like to hear their beloved ones have died.
Meanwhile, Christianity has much fewer ''crusaders'' (if you even could consider them so) today. Only Joseph Kony comes to mind, but that's around it.

It says that that's what disbelievers deserve, not that they should actually get it. The article ends up talking about the verse as it was talking about how pharaoh would do that to those who followed Musa (Moses[SAWS]). Also, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. is a small minority compared to the majority of Muslims who don't support them.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What? I don't even understand what your saying. Islam isn't a culture. It's a religion. It's not that Europeans can't cover their faces, it's that they don't because they aren't Muslims. There are things Christians do and certain things Muslims do. Wearing niqab is what some Muslims do.

Not covering ones face in public has nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. The reason is that people must be identifiable in public.

Niqab has to do with Islam.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Strange that cutting off heads, cutting off hands and hanging people are mentioned in the Quran as a valid way of punishment for being against Islam then.
I suggest you read the link and especially its quotes.

If they aren't islamic countries, then how come there are islamic peoples? There is no such notion as a 'correct' Islam, nor an 'incorrect' Islam.
Islam is a form of thinking and living, a religion and part of a culture. To deny that is to deny one's own existence if you were to be a Muslim.

The Christianity thing isn't even a scenario. It did happen in the past.
I wouldn't call around 200,000 fighters in ISIL a 'small minority', nor the Taliban, Nusra, -Qaeda small parties. They are really big organisations.

Now, back to my post. Have you read it entirely, including the update?


EDIT: Also, still, only 200 fighters can cause much trouble. Think about the five fighters in Paris. Two hundred deaths. That is not something to underestimate.
Most of - if not, all - of these people were innocent, had a flourishing live, were just people that lived their lives. And these lives are now over, by a few Islamic bombers.
That is not something to be proud of, nor to be uncaring about. Every live has a value, and if my, your, or anybody's live were to end, what do you think you would find about that if your end was coming before you? I don't think you would not care, nor that you would like it. Neither would the families of the victims like to hear their beloved ones have died.
Meanwhile, Christianity has much fewer ''crusaders'' (if you even could consider them so) today. Only Joseph Kony comes to mind, but that's around it.

It says that that's what disbelievers deserve, not that they should actually get it. The article ends up talking about the verse as it was talking about how pharaoh would do that to those who followed Musa (Moses[SAWS]). Also, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. is a small minority compared to the majority of Muslims who don't support them.

It also says that the Holy Qur'an "The Qur'an has to be interpreted as a whole." Not as 1 small verse apart.

[Teemant]

Not covering ones face in public has nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. The reason is that people must be identifiable in public.

Niqab has to do with Islam.

So?
People must be identifiable in public because of safety reasons and because Europe is secular no religion can get exception.

[South Shellfort]

Strange that cutting off heads, cutting off hands and hanging people are mentioned in the Quran as a valid way of punishment for being against Islam then.
I suggest you read the link and especially its quotes.

If they aren't islamic countries, then how come there are islamic peoples? There is no such notion as a 'correct' Islam, nor an 'incorrect' Islam.
Islam is a form of thinking and living, a religion and part of a culture. To deny that is to deny one's own existence if you were to be a Muslim.

The Christianity thing isn't even a scenario. It did happen in the past.
I wouldn't call around 200,000 fighters in ISIL a 'small minority', nor the Taliban, Nusra, -Qaeda small parties. They are really big organisations.

Now, back to my post. Have you read it entirely, including the update?


EDIT: Also, still, only 200 fighters can cause much trouble. Think about the five fighters in Paris. Two hundred deaths. That is not something to underestimate.
Most of - if not, all - of these people were innocent, had a flourishing live, were just people that lived their lives. And these lives are now over, by a few Islamic bombers.
That is not something to be proud of, nor to be uncaring about. Every live has a value, and if my, your, or anybody's live were to end, what do you think you would find about that if your end was coming before you? I don't think you would not care, nor that you would like it. Neither would the families of the victims like to hear their beloved ones have died.
Meanwhile, Christianity has much fewer ''crusaders'' (if you even could consider them so) today. Only Joseph Kony comes to mind, but that's around it.

It says that that's what disbelievers deserve, not that they should actually get it. The article ends up talking about the verse as it was talking about how pharaoh would do that to those who followed Musa (Moses[SAWS]). Also, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. is a small minority compared to the majority of Muslims who don't support them.

The minority makes the majority

[Herargon]

Strange that cutting off heads, cutting off hands and hanging people are mentioned in the Quran as a valid way of punishment for being against Islam then.
I suggest you read the link and especially its quotes.

If they aren't islamic countries, then how come there are islamic peoples? There is no such notion as a 'correct' Islam, nor an 'incorrect' Islam.
Islam is a form of thinking and living, a religion and part of a culture. To deny that is to deny one's own existence if you were to be a Muslim.

The Christianity thing isn't even a scenario. It did happen in the past.
I wouldn't call around 200,000 fighters in ISIL a 'small minority', nor the Taliban, Nusra, -Qaeda small parties. They are really big organisations.

Now, back to my post. Have you read it entirely, including the update?


EDIT: Also, still, only 200 fighters can cause much trouble. Think about the five fighters in Paris. Two hundred deaths. That is not something to underestimate.
Most of - if not, all - of these people were innocent, had a flourishing live, were just people that lived their lives. And these lives are now over, by a few Islamic bombers.
That is not something to be proud of, nor to be uncaring about. Every live has a value, and if my, your, or anybody's live were to end, what do you think you would find about that if your end was coming before you? I don't think you would not care, nor that you would like it. Neither would the families of the victims like to hear their beloved ones have died.
Meanwhile, Christianity has much fewer ''crusaders'' (if you even could consider them so) today. Only Joseph Kony comes to mind, but that's around it.

It says that that's what disbelievers deserve, not that they should actually get it. The article ends up talking about the verse as it was talking about how pharaoh would do that to those who followed Musa (Moses[SAWS]). Also, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. is a small minority compared to the majority of Muslims who don't support them.

But saying someone deserves death for being against Islam is the same as wishing death to somebody. That constitutes hate speech, and that is forbidden in most countries, to be fair.
If you are threatening somebody with death, then that is something to be seriously taken. That is a grave crime to do.
A fatwa is currently still often used as a death threat, and can lead to death of somebody. Death penalty is highly disapprovable. It is a barbaric tactic to treat people. It's forbidden to kill people yet a death penalty can be used, which in my opinion is somewhat hypocritic. The US regarding that is also not being humane.

It indeed is a small minority, but nonetheless a radical minority. One Islamic bomber can kill four people, if not more. Twenty and you have a massacre, like in Paris.
Hundred and there's a conflict. Thousand and you do have many, many more people killed, like in Iraq (luckily, there's a very strict control nowadays, though bombings do still take place).
And so, ten thousands and hundreds of thousands can cause a regional war, look at Libya, Iraq and Syria, for example.

I wouldn't call that a small minority if that has hundreds of thousands of people, and has such global effects (that are overwhelmingly negative in this case).

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Niqab has to do with Islam.

So?
People must be identifiable in public because of safety reasons and because Europe is secular no religion can get exception.

Europe also supports religious freedom, so banning niqab was hypocritical, unless Latvia isn't a part of the EU. But even then, doesn't Latvia have religious freedom?

[Herargon]

It says that that's what disbelievers deserve, not that they should actually get it. The article ends up talking about the verse as it was talking about how pharaoh would do that to those who followed Musa (Moses[SAWS]). Also, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. is a small minority compared to the majority of Muslims who don't support them.

It also says that the Holy Qur'an "The Qur'an has to be interpreted as a whole." Not as 1 small verse apart.

Well, the Quran is made of many small verses. Even if there is only one sentence that says it is OK to kill people because they disagree with Islam, then you can't ignore that, nor downplay that.
That is a sentence that has a large effect. If I were to take out the 'five pillars of Islam' of the Qur'an, then it no longer would be a Quran, because Islam is built upon those five pillars primarily. It would be a different religion. Therefore in some cases you can interprete the Quran by a few sentences - but not all.
In this case however, that sentence has such a influence, that the Quran cannot be interpreted without it, but the sentence can be interpreted without the Quran as a whole, although it still remains associated with Islam, because the religion of Islam is directly referred to in the sentences.

[Herargon]

So?
People must be identifiable in public because of safety reasons and because Europe is secular no religion can get exception.

Europe also supports religious freedom, so banning niqab was hypocritical, unless Latvia isn't a part of the EU. But even then, doesn't Latvia have religious freedom?

Not to gloat, but I must nonetheless frown upon your statement and your argumentation.

We can make that argument as well for the Middle East. 'The Middle East also supports religious freedom, so banning bibles was hypocritical, unless Saudi Arabia isn't a part of the Arab League. But even then, doesn't Saudi Arabia have religious freedom?'

The difference is however, that in Latvia, you can still believe as a Muslim. You have to interpret the constitution of Latvia as a whole - if we are using your argument as well.
In Saudi Arabia, you however cannot believe as a Christian. No bibles, no crosses, because it will get you stoning. Even if we interpret the constitution of Saudi Arabia as a whole, stoning, lashes, death penalty, etc. are still legal, and you cannot exercise Christianity there, nor be atheist and safe.
That is not to be called 'religious freedom'.

[MERIZoC]

I'm saying that you could've said in a less rude and offending way. Like for example: "I don't believe in the Qur'an because..." not "the Qur'an in full-on BS that oppresses women". not that you said specifically that, but the former would've been better to say.

Considering my opinion of religion in general and the monotheisms in particular, I've been pretty nice. In any case, if we've moved past the final objectionable line of my post, perhaps you could address the rest.

You're back!

[South Shellfort]

Europe also supports religious freedom, so banning niqab was hypocritical, unless Latvia isn't a part of the EU. But even then, doesn't Latvia have religious freedom?

Not to gloat, but I must nonetheless frown upon your statement and your argumentation.

We can make that argument as well for the Middle East. 'The Middle East also supports religious freedom, so banning bibles was hypocritical, unless Saudi Arabia isn't a part of the Arab League. But even then, doesn't Saudi Arabia have religious freedom?'

The difference is however, that in Latvia, you can still believe as a Muslim. You have to interpret the constitution of Latvia as a whole - if we are using your argument as well.
In Saudi Arabia, you however cannot believe as a Christian. No bibles, no crosses, because it will get you stoning. Even if we interpret the constitution of Saudi Arabia as a whole, stoning, lashes, death penalty, etc. are still legal, and you cannot exercise Christianity there, nor be atheist and safe.
That is not to be called 'religious freedom'.

That is the why to all nations with religious freedom to ban Islam. If they abolish these primitive laws, they could go and have freedom in the west.

[The Greater German Federal Republic]

Not to gloat, but I must nonetheless frown upon your statement and your argumentation.

We can make that argument as well for the Middle East. 'The Middle East also supports religious freedom, so banning bibles was hypocritical, unless Saudi Arabia isn't a part of the Arab League. But even then, doesn't Saudi Arabia have religious freedom?'

The difference is however, that in Latvia, you can still believe as a Muslim. You have to interpret the constitution of Latvia as a whole - if we are using your argument as well.
In Saudi Arabia, you however cannot believe as a Christian. No bibles, no crosses, because it will get you stoning. Even if we interpret the constitution of Saudi Arabia as a whole, stoning, lashes, death penalty, etc. are still legal, and you cannot exercise Christianity there, nor be atheist and safe.
That is not to be called 'religious freedom'.

That is the why to all nations with religious freedom to ban Islam. If they abolish these primitive laws, they could go and have freedom in the west.

Exactly
Usually, Muslims go to Europe and demand their little religious stuff like veils and so on.
Seriously, if they want to live in Europe, then fit into European culture.
And Islam certainly does not belong in 95% of Europe.
If we visit another country, we don't try to force our stuff on them now do we?

[Vistulange]

There are no 'Muslim' countries because none of them interpret the Holy Qur'an correctly.

So, which of the 1,000,000+ different interpretations of the Holy Qu´ran is the correct one?

His own, of course. Just like every other Islamist.

I don't agree too much on life imprisonment and capital punishment, so Turkey's wrong imo. And I didn't say special treatment, just that I be treated like everybody else.

In my opinion, your ideology is a cancer which seeks to snuff out all freedoms and enforce a single belief system on everybody. Your point? And yes, you would not be treated specially. Again, I fully suppressing Islamism with whatever is necessary, except by taking lives. The ideology is a cancer on the very tenets of freedom of both speech and belief, a reactionary system of dogmas which seeks to pull humanity centuries back.

[South Shellfort]

So, which of the 1,000,000+ different interpretations of the Holy Qu´ran is the correct one?

His own, of course. Just like every other Islamist.

I don't agree too much on life imprisonment and capital punishment, so Turkey's wrong imo. And I didn't say special treatment, just that I be treated like everybody else.

In my opinion, your ideology is a cancer which seeks to snuff out all freedoms and enforce a single belief system on everybody. Your point? And yes, you would not be treated specially. Again, I fully suppressing Islamism with whatever is necessary, except by taking lives. The ideology is a cancer on the very tenets of freedom of both speech and belief, a reactionary system of dogmas which seeks to pull humanity centuries back.

Wait. You are a Turkish-Canadian. The thing you wrote above apparently shows that you aren't Muslim.
To what religion do you belong?

[Vistulange]

His own, of course. Just like every other Islamist.



In my opinion, your ideology is a cancer which seeks to snuff out all freedoms and enforce a single belief system on everybody. Your point? And yes, you would not be treated specially. Again, I fully believe in suppressing Islamism with whatever is necessary, except by taking lives. The ideology is a cancer on the very tenets of freedom of both speech and belief, a reactionary system of dogmas which seeks to pull humanity centuries back.

Wait. You are a Turkish-Canadian. The thing you wrote above apparently shows that you aren't Muslim.
To what religion do you belong?

Because I have to be a bloody Muslim if I'm Turkish! Good God!

Furthermore, what I said is not necessarily "anti-Muslim". I never supported nor will support actual actions against Muslims, which would be completely unnecessary and blatant discrimination at a level which cannot be accepted by any moral standard except the morals of those blinded too much by their own dogmatic ideologies. I support the suppression of any ideology which seeks to disestablish the core tenets of democracy, freedom of speech and the freedom of (or lack of) belief and human rights. In the year 2016, the primary ideology with such a goal is Islamism. There are moderate Muslims, and there are very productive, law-abiding and good Muslims, and to suppress these people for being who they are is absolutely nonsense. However, attempts to use democratic rights and institutions to unmake those very rights and institutions should be met with absolute and overwhelming force.

[Vzysokarus]

Yes than by that definition I do, she be free to practice her religion open and publicly, but we don't allow people to fully conceal their face in public because it a security threat. We don't let people wear Bakaclavas in public, nor do we let people wear traditional religious masks in public. If they want to do so in the privacy of their home, or in the environment of a mosque than that's fine but we shouldn't give people a legal loop hole in legislation regarding public concealment simple because we don't want to offend a religious tradition.

I still feel like his is not the right turn Latvia wants to take. I want Islam to be free, not to be put in a box and told what to do by people who might not even know the religion well. As long as no one's being harmed, everything's alright.

Except the face cover has been used several times in order to circumvent security. The latest example was a twin suicide bombing in Chad where the attackers used extremely conservative dress to hide their identity and the bomb under the cloths. This was also the case in Cameroon where a similar incident took place. There are real world concerns for countries to want to not have ways for people to publicly conceal their identity and especially given the recent string of attacks by the Islamic State and the threat of several more in the future. It's not out of the question to not have a religious loop hole in any sort of anti-concealment legislation.

[Scomagia]

Considering my opinion of religion in general and the monotheisms in particular, I've been pretty nice. In any case, if we've moved past the final objectionable line of my post, perhaps you could address the rest.

You're back!

For the time being. I'm also waiting for El-Amin to address that post.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It says that that's what disbelievers deserve, not that they should actually get it. The article ends up talking about the verse as it was talking about how pharaoh would do that to those who followed Musa (Moses[SAWS]). Also, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. is a small minority compared to the majority of Muslims who don't support them.

But saying someone deserves death for being against Islam is the same as wishing death to somebody. That constitutes hate speech, and that is forbidden in most countries, to be fair.
If you are threatening somebody with death, then that is something to be seriously taken. That is a grave crime to do.
A fatwa is currently still often used as a death threat, and can lead to death of somebody. Death penalty is highly disapprovable. It is a barbaric tactic to treat people. It's forbidden to kill people yet a death penalty can be used, which in my opinion is somewhat hypocritic. The US regarding that is also not being humane.

It indeed is a small minority, but nonetheless a radical minority. One Islamic bomber can kill four people, if not more. Twenty and you have a massacre, like in Paris.
Hundred and there's a conflict. Thousand and you do have many, many more people killed, like in Iraq (luckily, there's a very strict control nowadays, though bombings do still take place).
And so, ten thousands and hundreds of thousands can cause a regional war, look at Libya, Iraq and Syria, for example.

I wouldn't call that a small minority if that has hundreds of thousands of people, and has such global effects (that are overwhelmingly negative in this case).

You had a point and you had me thinking for a moment. But after going to the Masjid and talking to the imam about it, he said that the Muslims were at war when this verse came out. So this verse may be that it was a figure of speech for fighting.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Europe also supports religious freedom, so banning niqab was hypocritical, unless Latvia isn't a part of the EU. But even then, doesn't Latvia have religious freedom?

Not to gloat, but I must nonetheless frown upon your statement and your argumentation.

We can make that argument as well for the Middle East. 'The Middle East also supports religious freedom, so banning bibles was hypocritical, unless Saudi Arabia isn't a part of the Arab League. But even then, doesn't Saudi Arabia have religious freedom?'

The difference is however, that in Latvia, you can still believe as a Muslim. You have to interpret the constitution of Latvia as a whole - if we are using your argument as well.
In Saudi Arabia, you however cannot believe as a Christian. No bibles, no crosses, because it will get you stoning. Even if we interpret the constitution of Saudi Arabia as a whole, stoning, lashes, death penalty, etc. are still legal, and you cannot exercise Christianity there, nor be atheist and safe.
That is not to be called 'religious freedom'.

If the West wants to be seen as an example to the world, which by far they aren't, they allow the niqab to stay. And yes I do think that Saudi Arabia should allow more religious freedom.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Not to gloat, but I must nonetheless frown upon your statement and your argumentation.

We can make that argument as well for the Middle East. 'The Middle East also supports religious freedom, so banning bibles was hypocritical, unless Saudi Arabia isn't a part of the Arab League. But even then, doesn't Saudi Arabia have religious freedom?'

The difference is however, that in Latvia, you can still believe as a Muslim. You have to interpret the constitution of Latvia as a whole - if we are using your argument as well.
In Saudi Arabia, you however cannot believe as a Christian. No bibles, no crosses, because it will get you stoning. Even if we interpret the constitution of Saudi Arabia as a whole, stoning, lashes, death penalty, etc. are still legal, and you cannot exercise Christianity there, nor be atheist and safe.
That is not to be called 'religious freedom'.

That is the why to all nations with religious freedom to ban Islam. If they abolish these primitive laws, they could go and have freedom in the west.

If the West were to ban Islam (Allah forbid they don't), then there'd be no religious freedom.