I am not having much luck in any of the other threads, so hear goes. Gandalf, can you please give your view on what Islamic law's stance is on the following issues, and whether you personally agree with or support it?

Apostasy
Democracy
Slavery
Blasphemy
Stoning people to death
Collective punishment
Domestic violence
Spousal rape
Equality before the law
Arranged marriages
Marrying pre-pubescent girls
Necrophilia
Adultery
Polygamy
Alcohol
Music

Ooh goody - a thread dedicated to me. Should I be honoured?


freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2012 at 12:50pm:

Gandalf, can you please give your view on what Islamic law's stance is on the following issues,

I will try, but please be aware I am not an islamic scholar, do not (yet) speak arabic - and thus am in no better position than you to make authoritative judgments. Ultimately my judgments can be little more than hearing all sides of the arguments and looking at mainstream scholarly opinions.

Apostasy - no Quranic prescription, but most muslim scholars argue that islam prescribes death based on certain hadith. I do not know enough about it to have an opinion on whether this is right or not.

Democracy - surely a term that is far too loaded. Overall though I am not aware of any inherent contradiction between islamic law and the principle of democracy. Though I would imagine there would have to be provisions to safeguard the "islamic" character of the society. They couldn't, for example, "democratically" pass legislation that is prohibited by islamic law (eg legalise alcohol) - unless of course it was for the benefit of the non-islamic population - which is what happens in Malaysia.

Slavery - slavery is permitted in islam under limited and strict conditions. The quranic prescription of slavery makes sense given the context - which was the welfare of non-muslims who were taken in war. Why do I say welfare? Because standard practice of non-islamic contemporary regimes was to mass slaughter POWs and conquered people. Slavery was also common in all societies - but before islam, were almost universally characterised by mistreatment and cruelty. The introduction of islamic slavery - with hitherto unheard of considerations for the basic human rights of the slaves - was a massive step-up in the ethical treatment of conquered people.

If you're asking me what islam says about slavery today, the answer is I don't know. I don't know the exact conditions required for slavery, and whether or not they can be met in the modern world. I suspect they do not.

Blasphemy - Now we both know you know my opinion on this - I expressed in one of the first threads I contributed on in this forum. Please refresh your memory (hint: my opinion is clearly stated on the first page).

Stoning people to death - which is for adultery only - just to be clear, since you seem to throw around this term as if every single islamic punishment involves this. This is another one of those "islamic laws" that has no quranic basis. In fact the quran prescribes a completely different form of punishment for adultery (flogging). I am extremely sceptical that stoning is part of shariah law - and given that the practice is so rare as to be virtually non-existent in the islamic world today (and I'm pretty sure has been for a long long time), it would seem the great majority of the muslim world agrees with me (excepting Abu - apparently).

Collective punishment - strictly forbidden in islam. There are several quranic verses that clearly sets out a code of ethics for legitimate warfare - and things like destruction of civilian property, killing of civilians, needless destruction and inhumane treatment of conquered people are strictly forbidden.

Domestic violence - strictly forbidden under islamic law. Violence against women - especially your wife is expressly forbidden. There is one oft-quoted quranic verse about men lightly hitting the wife if she refuses sex - but my understanding is that the arabic word for "hit" is a mistranslation - and it is meant in a metaphorical sense.

Spousal rape - as explained above

Equality before the law - presumably referring to muslims compared to non-muslims? They are not equal before sharia law - because for most things sharia does not apply for non-muslims. Non-muslims do not enjoy an equal legal status as muslims (under a sharia system). This can mean, for example, that non-muslims are allowed to drink alcohol, avoid military service, and not be subject to many of the sharia penal code.

Arranged marriages - as far as I know has no basis in islamic law. This is a cultural practice.

Marrying pre-pubescent girls - islamic law has no legal age for marriage.

Necrophilia - you are joking, surely. I *REALLY* hope - though sadly suspect you are - referring to the recent report coming out from Egypt about some alleged legislation to legalise it - which was quickly proven to be a hoax?

Islam forbids necrophillia - obviously  ::)

Adultery - a crime under islamic law in which the sentence is either stoning or flogging - depending on which islamic scholars you follow. My understanding is that the punishment is automatic for the man, but certain circumstances have to be met before the punishment can be meted out on the woman.

Polygamy - islam allows a man to marry up to 4 wives

Alcohol - alcohol is forbidden under islamic law

Music - *NOT* forbidden under islamic law. And many muslims use music as a medium to spread the teachings of islam - see Mahir Zain and Yousef Islam (the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens) for two prominent contemporary examples.


Quote:

and whether you personally agree with or support it?

I think islamic law has it pretty much right - keeping in mind that I am unclear on many many details of islamic law, and noting the wide differences of opinions amongst islamic scholars. Overall I tend to side with the more moderate interpretations - eg stoning should be out.

Thanks Gandalf. I appreciate the detail. It is good to know where you stand on these things. I will have a closer look tomorrow.

gandalf,

In the light of your response, @ post #1, do you consider yourself to be a moslem ?

And do you consider yourself to be an authentic, practising [a 'rightly guided'] moslem ?




If your response is in the affirmative to the two Q's above, then imo, you are in error [based upon your responses in post #1 to the issues that you replied to].

Q.
What do you understand about ISLAMIC law, and what ISLAMIC law permits ???

A.
Very little.




Your responses;

Apostasy   WRONG   Koran 4.88, 89    IF THEY OPPOSE YOU 'seize them and slay them wherever ye find them'  'islam prescribes death based on certain hadith' ...AND IN ISLAMIC LAW TEXTS fiqhussunnah/#3.110
Democracy
Slavery  CORRECT         'If you're asking me what islam says about slavery today, the answer is I don't know.' ...THERE IS NO CHANGE FROM THE SANCTION WHICH APPLIED IN 7 TH CENTURY
Blasphemy   ???
Stoning people to death
Collective punishment  'strictly forbidden in islam'   REALLY ?   THOUGH COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT IS ACTIVELY IMPLEMENTED; E.G. POPE INSULTS ISLAM, SAYS ISLAM IS VIOLENT, NUNS ARE MURDERED IN AFRICA; MOHAMMED CARTOONS PUBLISHED IN EUROPE, NON-MOSLEMS IN SHARIA JURISDICTIONS ARE MURDERED
Domestic violence  WRONG - EFFECTIVELY SANCTIONED    Koran 4.034     "beat them (lightly)" is often quoted.    n.b. [highlight]The 'clarifying' insertion, "(lightly)", DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE ARABIC VERSIONS OF THE KORAN
Spousal rape  EFFECTIVELY SANCTIONED IN THE.... Koran 2.223
Equality before the law WRONG - NON-MOSLEMS ARE TOLERATED, UNLESS THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT INJUSTICE
Arranged marriages WRONG      Koran 2.221
Marrying pre-pubescent girls   CORRECT - AISHA HERSELF IS QUOTED, ABOUT THE AGE OF HER JOINING TO M.
Necrophilia   PRETTY SURE THIS IS SANCTIONED
Adultery  CORRECT
Polygamy  CORRECT 'islam allows a man to marry up to 4 wives' ...AND TO HAVE SEX WITH ANY NUMBER OF FEMALE SLAVES
Alcohol   CORRECT
Music   ALL UN-ISLAMIC MUSIC IS HARAM

Yadda - firstly thank you for writing a reply that does not use excessive spacing and oversized and inappropriately coloured text. You actually come across as slightly less of a raving lunatic.

Secondly, yes I am a practicing muslim (*gasp! Shock horror!!*).

Thirdly I am not ashamed to admit there is a lot about islamic law that I am not sure of. However that does not disqualify me from being a muslim - provided I am willing to do as much as I can to learn the truth - which is what I try and do. As long as I have a firm grasp of the fundamentals - especially the 5 pillars, then that is the minimum requirement as far as knowledge goes. I believe I have that knowledge already. Things like what is the prescribed punishment for adultery is not the be end and be all of being a muslim. The important thing is to know that adultery is forbidden.

Apostasy - it is deceptive to refer only to the Koran, as the majority of Islamic law comes not expressly from the Koran but from the hadith and the consensus on Islamic rulings. The Reliance of the Traveller, the leading Sunni Islamic text recommended by Al-Azar University the leading school of Islamic sunni jurisprudence, clearly says that a person who is sane and has reached puberty and who commits apostasy must be killed.

Democracy - is only a means to an end in Islam. The only true state is the Islamic state, the caliphate. Democracy can be used to seize power, but is considered manmade rubbish, as only the true system of government is Islam and the caliphate.

Slavery - all non-muslims conquered in jihad become slaves, including sex slaves as all infidel marriages are annulled.

There are still places in Islam where slaves are kept, such as Sudan. A former Islamic slave, Simon Deng from Sudan tells harrowing stories about it.

Blasphemy - 'Any who insults the Prophet - kill him.' That's pretty clear. Mohammed was also fond of killing anyone who made fun of him, as he was such a brittle cry baby, much like the religion today.

Stoning people to death - exists for adultery in some places officially (such as Iran) but in many other Islamic places unofficially, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Killing people for all manner of trivia is common place in Islam, such as for insulting the prophet.

Collective punishment - operates in practice for minority religions under the Islamic state. All that is needed is for someone to start a rumour that a christian defaced a koran and a howling bloodthirsty mob will run about torching, raping, looting to keep the infidels 'in their place'. This was common in the Ottoman Empire, and more recently examples of this can be seen in Pakistan and Egypt.

Domestic violence - the Koran says you can beat your wife.

Spousal rape - there is no such thing, as in a woman cannot refuse sex in marriage except on a very limited basis, so how could she ever be raped?. A woman can only refuse sex on a medical basis for up to three days.

Equality before the law - infidels are at the whim of their Islamic masters, and must be distinguished in dress from muslims (some guy called Hitler or something had a rule like that too...)

Arranged marriages:women are considered the property of men, so women have to do what they are told by their male relatives, including who to marry.

Marrying pre-pubescent girls: indeed Mohammed who is meant to be the perfect man and the best example, married a six year old and had sex with her when she was nine. Mohammed's 'best example' is used as the rationale to promote child marriage throughout the Islamic world.

Adultery - only in reality a crime if you sleep with another Islamic woman when married, or sleep with someone who is a muslim before you are married. You can sleep with as many infidel women as you like, they are fair game.  In the Islamic world, and especially in Saudi Arabia, doing other men up the bum bum is very very common. In Afghanistan too.

haters gonna hate  ::)


Calanen wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

Democracy - is only a means to an end in Islam. The only true state is the Islamic state, the caliphate. Democracy can be used to seize power, but is considered manmade rubbish, as only the true system of government is Islam and the caliphate.

What you fail to consider is that a caliph can be elected by the people and govern according to a constitutional republic - ie a democracy. In fact this is exactly how sunnis believe it should be.


Calanen wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

Blasphemy - 'Any who insults the Prophet - kill him.' That's pretty clear.

It is far from clear. I don't know where that quote is from, but it is contradicted by a) the quran encouraging muslims to firstly engage blasphemers in constructive dialogue, followed by ignoring them and b) hadiths that illustrate the prophet pardoning blasphemers.


Calanen wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

Stoning people to death - exists for adultery in some places officially (such as Iran)

wrong. Stoning was officially scrapped from Iranian law through legislation in 2008.


Calanen wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

Collective punishment - operates in practice for minority religions under the Islamic state. All that is needed is for someone to start a rumour that a christian defaced a koran and a howling bloodthirsty mob will run about torching, raping, looting to keep the infidels 'in their place'.

Mobs running amuck has nothing to do with collective punishment that is sanctioned by the state. Also historically minorities have received far better treatment in the islamic world than in non-islamic societies. Jews, are just one example.


Calanen wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

Spousal rape - there is no such thing, as in a woman cannot refuse sex in marriage except on a very limited basis, so how could she ever be raped?. A woman can only refuse sex on a medical basis for up to three days.

This is a common misconception. Even if the quran makes it a sin for women to refuse their husbands, this doesn't give the husband a licence to rape them. What the quran is very clear on is to treat women with dignity and to not take any woman by force - and simple common sense says this contradicts your baseless claim.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2012 at 1:44pm:

Yadda - firstly thank you for writing a reply that does not use excessive spacing and oversized and inappropriately coloured text. You actually come across as slightly less of a raving lunatic. Secondly, yes I am a practicing muslim (*gasp! Shock horror!!*). Thirdly I am not ashamed to admit there is a lot about islamic law that I am not sure of. However that does not disqualify me from being a muslim - provided I am willing to do as much as I can to learn the truth - which is what I try and do. As long as I have a firm grasp of the fundamentals - especially the 5 pillars, then that is the minimum requirement as far as knowledge goes. I believe I have that knowledge already. Things like what is the prescribed punishment for adultery is not the be end and be all of being a muslim. The important thing is to know that adultery is forbidden.

Quote:

The Five Pillars of Islam The most important Muslim practices are the Five Pillars of Islam. The Five Pillars of Islam are the five obligations that every Muslim must satisfy in order to live a good and responsible life according to Islam. The Five Pillars consist of:     Shahadah: sincerely reciting the Muslim profession of faith     Salat: performing ritual prayers in the proper way five times each day     Zakat: paying an alms (or charity) tax to benefit the poor and the needy     Sawm: fasting during the month of Ramadan     Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca Why are they important? Carrying out these obligations provides the framework of a Muslim's life, and weaves their everyday activities and their beliefs into a single cloth of religious devotion. No matter how sincerely a person may believe, Islam regards it as pointless to live life without putting that faith into action and practice. Carrying out the Five Pillars demonstrates that the Muslim is putting their faith first, and not just trying to fit it in around their secular lives.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/practices/fivepillars.shtml


The obligations to ISLAM, for a moslem [for EVERY self declared moslem], extend much further than what you are admitting.




gandalf,

Many moslems have expressed that they consider the Taliban period in Afghanistan to have been the purest example of an ISLAMIC society in recent times.

As a practising moslem, would you also agree ?

Was the Taliban a recent exemplar of a moral ISLAMIC society ???

IMAGE
http://thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/adultery-lower.jpg







+++

And is this why the West removed Sadam Husein ?    ----->

So that moslems could 'righteously' murder people in public parks, in Iraq, coz 1/ men and women were mixing in public, and 2/ they were listening to 'un-ILSMAIC' music ?

Google;
iraq, death at immoral picnic in the park







"Allah is our objective;
the Quran is our law,
the Prophet is our leader;
Jihad is our way;
and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

haters gonna hate  ::) Calanen wrote on Dec 5th, 2012 at 10:50am: Collective punishment - operates in practice for minority religions under the Islamic state. All that is needed is for someone to start a rumour that a christian defaced a koran and a howling bloodthirsty mob will run about torching, raping, looting to keep the infidels 'in their place'. Mobs running amuck has nothing to do with collective punishment that is sanctioned by the state. Also historically minorities have received far better treatment in the islamic world than in non-islamic societies. Jews, are just one example.

gandalf,

Such collective punishment meted out by moslem mobs against local 'disbelievers' [who are the local members of a 'group' which have offended moslems in some way] does have the sanction of ISLAM, when the mobs inflicting the punishment are moslem mobs.

Because as you know, and as every moslem knows, it is haram for a moslem to engage in any public activity, unless that activity is permitted by Sharia law.

So it is an empty argument to claim that moslems, who frequently inflict 'collective punishment' upon innocent [local] individuals, were not justified, by ISLAMIC law.




"Ye [moslems] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah.......[and it is the 'unbelievers' who] are perverted transgressors."
Koran 3.110



And as an aside, we saw this 'collective punishment' being meted out, here in Australia, on Aust TV out by moslem youths, after the 'Cronulla riots'.

When carloads of moslem youths were 'cruising' shopping districts and were looking to beat up innocent individuals on the street that they identified as; "He's an Aussie!!!"

Whereupon it appeared that around 6 moslem youths exited the car(s), and proceeded to beat upon a stranger on the street.

Those moslems, were probably ISLAMIC warriors!
/sarc off


"Ye [moslems] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah.......[and it is the 'unbelievers' who] are perverted transgressors."
Koran 3.110

Yadda wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 5:27pm:

Many moslems have expressed that they consider the Taliban period in Afghanistan to have been the purest example of an ISLAMIC society in recent times. As a practising moslem, would you also agree ? Was the Taliban a recent exemplar of a moral ISLAMIC society ???

no and no.


Yadda wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 5:53pm:

Because as you know, and as every moslem knows, it is haram for a moslem to engage in any public activity, unless that activity is permitted by Sharia law. So it is an empty argument to claim that moslems, who frequently inflict 'collective punishment' upon innocent [local] individuals, were not justified, by ISLAMIC law.

That is a logical fallacy. If islam forbids action A, it does not  follow that islam sanctions action B in reponse. Or in other words, responding to haram behaviour with rioting and random destruction is *NOT* permitted. Islam has strict procedures for how justice is carried out, and mob rule is definitely not sanctioned.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 6:55pm:

Yadda wrote on Dec 5th, 2012 at 5:27pm: Many moslems have expressed that they consider the Taliban period in Afghanistan to have been the purest example of an ISLAMIC society in recent times. As a practising moslem, would you also agree ? Was the Taliban a recent exemplar of a moral ISLAMIC society ??? no and no.

So the Taliban was an un-ISLAMIC authority ???







Quote:

Yadda wrote on Dec 5th, 2012 at 5:53pm: Because as you know, and as every moslem knows, it is haram for a moslem to engage in any public activity, unless that activity is permitted by Sharia law. So it is an empty argument to claim that moslems, who frequently inflict 'collective punishment' upon innocent [local] individuals, were not justified, by ISLAMIC law. That is a logical fallacy. If islam forbids action A, it does not  follow that islam sanctions action B in reponse. Or in other words, responding to haram behaviour with rioting and random destruction is *NOT* permitted. Islam has strict procedures for how justice is carried out, and mob rule is definitely not sanctioned.

gandalf,

Exactly so.

THEREFORE, the rioting and violent mob behaviour we witness daily from moslems, around the world, IS BEHAVIOUR WHICH IS SANCTIONED, BY ISLAMIC LAW.

Otherwise we would not see such behaviour being exhibited by moslems, because, all practising moslems know, what behaviour is haram [not permitted].


It is as i have stated many times here on OzPol;



To a moslem, all things are permissible, if they are permitted by Sharia law.


And all moslems KNOW what ISLAMIC law permits, and what is forbidden.

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29






And murdering those persons who insult ISLAM, or its prophet, is not only halal, but obligatory for practising, and 'rightly guided' moslems.

Now isn't that true?


Australia: "Very religious" Muslim stabs his brother for insulting Muhammad
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/12/australia-very-religious-muslim-stabs-his-brother-for-insulting-muhammad.html



IMAGE...
http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam2.jpg






IMAGE...
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/15/3637564/art-protest3-620x349.jpg







+++


gandalf said....

Quote:

Thirdly I am not ashamed to admit there is a lot about islamic law that I am not sure of. However that does not disqualify me from being a muslim - provided I am willing to do as much as I can to learn the truth - which is what I try and do. As long as I have a firm grasp of the fundamentals - especially the 5 pillars, then that is the minimum requirement as far as knowledge goes. I believe I have that knowledge already. Things like what is the prescribed punishment for adultery is not the be end and be all of being a muslim. The important thing is to know that adultery is forbidden.

gandalf,

Clearly you are a person who has an emotional attachment to ISLAM [i.e. a 'community' attachment to ISLAM].

Rather than an intellectual attachment to ISLAM.

Otherwise you would have a better knowledge, of what [violence] ISLAM sanctions, and what conduct ISLAM forbids [e.g. genuine friendship with non-moslems].

But you appear to be a person who is defending ISLAM, because ISLAM >> is << your religion, and not because of any great moral understanding of what ISLAM permits, and does not permit, or through any personal knowledge of what ISLAM requires of you, as a moslem.

We all have a responsibility, to God, to take responsibility for what we choose to embrace in this life.

And people such as yourself, have chosen to embrace ISLAM.




"Then, on the Day of Judgment,.....Then would they offer submission (with the pretence), "We did no evil (knowingly)." (The angels will reply), "Nay, but verily [God] knoweth all that ye did;"
Koran 16.27

Yadda wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 11:36pm:

So the Taliban was an un-ISLAMIC authority ???

no, you asked me if it was the "purest example of an islamic society", and an "exemplar of a moral islamic society" - in which case I said no and no.

Thats not to say it was "un-islamic" - though many of its practices was unislamic such as keeping women covered from head to toe, and banning girls from going to school. Though I must say in the context of Afghanistan at the time, there were very good reasons to do this given the anarchy and abuse of women that was happening before the taliban came to power. The draconian laws regarding woman undoubtedly reduced the rates of rape and abuse of women. But it shouldn't be considered "islamic" - though I'm sure the taliban (and others) would attempt to justify it on islamic grounds.


Yadda wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 11:36pm:

And murdering those persons who insult ISLAM, or its prophet, is not only halal, but obligatory for practising, and 'rightly guided' moslems. Now isn't that true?

No.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 6^th, 2012 at 8:05am:

Yadda wrote on Dec 5th, 2012 at 11:36pm: So the Taliban was an un-ISLAMIC authority ??? no, you asked me if it was the "purest example of an islamic society", and an "exemplar of a moral islamic society" - in which case I said no and no. Thats not to say it was "un-islamic" - though many of its practices was unislamic such as keeping women covered from head to toe, and banning girls from going to school. Though I must say in the context of Afghanistan at the time, there were very good reasons to do this given the anarchy and abuse of women that was happening before the taliban came to power. The draconian laws regarding woman undoubtedly reduced the rates of rape and abuse of women. But it shouldn't be considered "islamic" - though I'm sure the taliban (and others) would attempt to justify it on islamic grounds.

I'm sure, too.





Quote:

Yadda wrote on Dec 5th, 2012 at 11:36pm: And murdering those persons who insult ISLAM, or its prophet, is not only halal, but obligatory for practising, and 'rightly guided' moslems. Now isn't that true? No.

gandalf,

Then these images [below] of moslems on the streets of London and Sydney, calling for the murder the 'righteous killing' of those who insult ISLAM, are a figment of my imagination ?

OR,

Those persons are not REAL moslems ?

OR,

Those persons do not represent a true representation of what ISLAM allows ?

OR,

The infidel Zionist cameras which recorded those images, are clearly misrepresenting the true circumstances, and the true feelings of tolerance [to the scrutiny of ISLAM, by non-moslems], which all true moslems freely embrace ?

OR,

[insert another alternative absurdity here]






gandalf said.....

Quote:

No.

gandalf,

Are these images [below] real ?

What do these images represent, if not the threat [by practising moslems] to murder those who insult ISLAM or the prophet Mohammed ???





IMAGE...
http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam2.jpg






IMAGE...
http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/15/3637564/art-protest3-620x349.jpg








+++



gandalf,

Q.
Do you know what is the most basic 'insult' to ISLAM, as regarded, by ISLAM ?


I will tell you.

And this is the truth.

The most basic 'insult' to ISLAM, is the existence [in the world] of unbelief.

Because unbelief in man, is a crime against Allah.

And the existence of that unbelief, justifies the murder of the kuffar [who reject ISLAM], and who choose to embrace that unbelief.




gandalf,

That, is all explained in the Koran.....


"......the curse of Allah is on those without Faith."
Koran 2.089


"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11





gandalf,

I want you to understand what those last Koran verses mean.

And all that you need do [to understand], is to once again, look at the images of those moslems, parading those placards on the streets of London and Sydney.

Unbelief in man, is a crime against Allah.

And ISLAM openly declares that those criminals, have no protector.



gandalf,

And that, is what you choose, to belong to.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

haters gonna hate  ::) Opposing tyranny and totalitarian systems, religious dictatorship is not hate - it's common sense. Far far far more hate violence and bloodshed is perpetrated by Islam and than anywhere near those who oppose it. Islam has the monopoly on hate by a long way, and criticising Islam is a right - I am not going to be intimidated by the well worn leftie and Islamic alliance cliches designed to silence critics in the way of their march to power. Calanen wrote on Dec 5th, 2012 at 10:50am: Blasphemy - 'Any who insults the Prophet - kill him.' That's pretty clear. http://s12.postimage.org/6uefqafvx/Screen_Hunter_01_Dec_06_11_12.gif picture sharing That's from Reliance of the Traveller, leading Islamic sunni textbook recommended by Al Azar university, which is so important reference is made in the new Egyptian constitution as to its importance. Calanen wrote on Dec 5th, 2012 at 10:50am: Stoning people to death - exists for adultery in some places officially (such as Iran) Quote: wrong. Stoning was officially scrapped from Iranian law through legislation in 2008. Actually it wasn’t.  They have still been dithering about that in 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9078684/Iran-moves-to-ban-stoning.html So what they did was say,  oh we’ve scrapped it, then dragged their feet for four years and the President still hasn’t signed the law. They will just kill people in other ways for the same crime, as Amnesty International has stated in the article. The announcement to scrap the practice is just a sop to wide eyed westerners who are easily fooled. [quote] Mobs running amuck has nothing to do with collective punishment that is sanctioned by the state. Also historically minorities have received far better treatment in the islamic world than in non-islamic societies. Jews, are just one example.

Rubbish, that is revisionist nonsense.  Jews were made to cower in Islamic societies and still are today. What about all the Jews driven from Islamic lands after Israel was created in 1948? Not much interfaith tolerance shown there.  They have textbooks listing the ‘Contemptible Qualities of the Jew’ that are handed out by Saudi Arabia to Islamic schools around the world, and the anti-semitic rhetoric that is considered mainstream in the Middle East is worse than the Third Reich on its worse day. The Middle East even recycles old Nazi cartoons showing the evil jews. One of the biggest sellers in the Middle East is the Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


Quote:

This is a common misconception. Even if the quran makes it a sin for women to refuse their husbands, this doesn't give the husband a licence to rape them. What the quran is very clear on is to treat women with dignity and to not take any woman by force - and simple common sense says this contradicts your baseless claim.

It’s not baseless, again this is right there in Reliance of the Traveller, Umdat al Salik. A women can refuse sex only for up to three days for medical reasons. Men are allowed to beat women if they are disobedient, so as night follows day, no sex, a beating is to follow. And exactly how can an Islamic women with no rights complain anyway?

Calanen wrote on Dec 6^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

Rubbish, that is revisionist nonsense.  Jews were made to cower in Islamic societies and still are today. What about all the Jews driven from Islamic lands after Israel was created in 1948? Not much interfaith tolerance shown there.

It is not revisionist nonsense to say that jews were comparitively better off under islam than under christian Europe - its just an obvious fact. This statement needs no further clarification for anyone with even the most elementary understanding of history.


Calanen wrote on Dec 6^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

They have textbooks listing the ‘Contemptible Qualities of the Jew’ that are handed out by Saudi Arabia to Islamic schools around the world, and the anti-semitic rhetoric that is considered mainstream in the Middle East is worse than the Third Reich on its worse day. The Middle East even recycles old Nazi cartoons showing the evil jews. One of the biggest sellers in the Middle East is the Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

anti-semitism in the muslim world can be directly traced to the creation of Israel and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of muslims as a result. In other words, it is an entirely modern concept, and is virtually unheard of throughout the great majority of islamic history.


Calanen wrote on Dec 6^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

It’s not baseless, again this is right there in Reliance of the Traveller, Umdat al Salik. A women can refuse sex only for up to three days for medical reasons. Men are allowed to beat women if they are disobedient, so as night follows day, no sex, a beating is to follow. And exactly how can an Islamic women with no rights complain anyway?

please take more note of what you are actually refuting. You are *NOT* refuting my claim that spousal rape is forbidden when wives refuse their husbands. Here you are making a case for men being able to beat their wives - not rape them.

Quote:

anti-semitism in the muslim world can be directly traced to the creation of Israel and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of muslims as a result. In other words, it is an entirely modern concept, and is virtually unheard of throughout the great majority of islamic history.

More rubbish. Muslims displaced themselves by deciding to not have the state granted to them by the UN, but instead to start a war against the Jews which they lost and they've been crying about it ever since. Did they really think that in 1948 the UN was going to let another holocaust happen? Hardly, although it almost did - but the Jews kicked Arab butt, a group of civilians from Europe destroyed the mighty allah akbar jihad brigade professional armies from all around the Middle East, in a war that the Arabs started. And they've been crying about it ever since. It's like picking a fight in a bar and asking for sympathy when you get your lights put out by the guy you picked the fight with.

Anti-semitism is core to Islam. It existed long before Israel existed. Jews are evil according to Islam - they poisoned the prophet's lamb shank, although, one would think he wasnt a very good prophet if he did not foresee that his jewish cook would put arsenic in his dinner.

Remember that they world will not end until all the jews are killed remember, and the rocks will say 'There is a jew hiding behind me come kill him.'  Not even the Nazis had such strong open rhetoric.


Quote:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

Jews were comparatively better off under Islamic regimes than other places? By whose measure? Did you take a survey? The idea of keeping Christians and Jews alive after being conquered was not altruism, it was so someone could do the work while the big brave allah akbar jihads went around being tough with weapons. But living as a slave under Islam must have been hell for both christians and jews, and it still is today.

Islam tolerates nothing and no one except complete obedience to Islam or death. It is a fascist ideology that should be stricken from the pages of time. Ultimately they it will bring about its own destruction as more people know what it really is. As a result of the internet, far more people are educated as to the problematic totalitarian and medieval nature of Islam than they ever have been in the past.

Calanen wrote on Dec 6^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

Jews were comparatively better off under Islamic regimes than other places? By whose measure? Did you take a survey?

sure - my survey is the 4 million jews killed by Europeans during WWII by one side, while the other side turned a blind eye. Show me where more than 4 million jews have been killed in the islamic world. Any more stupid questions?

What a load of crap. All 'Europeans' are the same are they?

Turned a blind eye? British and Americans died by the tens of thousands fighting the Third Reich. More than 100,000 americans alone in Europe. The Russians lost millions.

But you know who didn't? The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. He joined up with the Third Reich and helped raise an SS Division. He negotiated with the Third Reich to get Palestine after the supposed victory of Hitler and was promised he could exterminate the Jews there with the German's help. What he as a muslim had in common with the Third Reich was the insane hatred of Jews.

And after siding with the Third Reich, the Arabs were lucky to get anything in the aftermath of WW2. They then squandered what they were given by starting a war of extermination which they lost.

Calanen wrote on Dec 7^th, 2012 at 6:54am:

All 'Europeans' are the same are they?

no - but apparently all "Arabs"/"muslims" are right? You are hilarious.


Calanen wrote on Dec 7^th, 2012 at 6:54am:

Turned a blind eye? British and Americans died by the tens of thousands fighting the Third Reich. More than 100,000 americans alone in Europe. The Russians lost millions.

and I suppose it was all for the jews  ::) You do realise the British and Americans literally blocked any jewish attempts at seeking asylum in those countries when the holocaust was about to begin right? You also realise that despite constant pleas from the jews neither US or British bomber command made a single sortie against any death camp facility - nor made any attempt whatsoever to end the genocide? Also that the British government kept the holocaust hidden from the British public - through fear that it might create sympathy for the Nazis?

But my point still stands - all Europeans or not, the fact remains that jews had it a hell of a lot harder in Europe than in muslim lands.


Calanen wrote on Dec 7^th, 2012 at 6:54am:

And after siding with the Third Reich, the Arabs...

um yeah... whats that you were saying about all Europeans not being the same again?  ::)

There's a well understood term in social psychology called outgroup homogeneity. Suggest you look it up and then look in the mirror.

Quote:

Democracy - surely a term that is far too loaded. Overall though I am not aware of any inherent contradiction between islamic law and the principle of democracy. Though I would imagine there would have to be provisions to safeguard the "islamic" character of the society. They couldn't, for example, "democratically" pass legislation that is prohibited by islamic law (eg legalise alcohol) - unless of course it was for the benefit of the non-islamic population - which is what happens in Malaysia.

That sounds like an inherent contradiction to me.


Quote:

What you fail to consider is that a caliph can be elected by the people and govern according to a constitutional republic - ie a democracy. In fact this is exactly how sunnis believe it should be.

May non-Muslims vote in these elections? May non-Muslims run for office? May candidates run on any platform other than shariah law?


Quote:

anti-semitism in the muslim world can be directly traced to the creation of Israel and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of muslims as a result

So Hitler for example did not tour the middle east prior to the creation of Israel and find a willing audience for his antisemitic diatribes? Muhammed for example did not slaughter Jews and blame it on the treachery of the Jews?

Gandalf can you give us your views on Shariah law and the Islamic system of government in General? Do you see it as an ongoing goal of Islam, or a historical artifact that can be discarded by modern Muslims?

Thats a loaded question FD, as there are many different aspects to sharia. It includes both the private (both personal and family) duties of every muslim as well as a system of government - with much overlap between the two.

By far the most important priority for muslims is to ensure the private duties are taken care of. Even though islam is very much a religion that emphasises community - once the private duties are taken care of, the communal issues should take care of itself.

As for specific laws that implement the sharia, there are a couple of ways of looking at it. One the one hand you can have a strict islamic code for all things, or you could have a secular common law that is complimented by sharia. An example is the option of family law and/or mediation being conducted by an islamic court - as it is currently allowed in the UK. In this case, sharia in no way subverts the common law, but acts as a complimenting alternative.

And it should work the other way too - in that the common law should not subvert the basic tenets of islamic law. Thus I don't agree with the secular laws in Turkey, who for example, bans female public servants from wearing the headscarf. Importantly though, this shouldn't apply for muslims living in non-muslim majority countries - where muslims are obligated to abide by the non-muslim laws. Of course these muslims have a right (and a duty as muslims) to democratically and peacefully campaign to freely practice their islamic duties. However this does not give them the right to disobey any laws that are currently in place prohibiting islamic practices. In fact the quran itself tells muslims who experience such restrictions in non-muslim countries to move to somewhere where such restrictions are not in place.

So I guess my position for muslim-majority countries, is that by far the most important priority is to remove all restrictions on freedom to carry out obligatory islamic duties (ie the 5 pillars) - as well as non-obligatory common muslim practices (like the hijab). Once these freedoms are in place, the next most important thing is for muslims to ensure that they carry out their islamic duties. After that, actually codifying islamic law into the common law seems almost redundant to me. Keeping in mind also the quranic command that their must not be any compulsion in religion.

Having said that, I can understand the other side of the argument - where, for example, if alcohol is not banned in the books, it can be seen as an official sanctioning of something that islam specifically prohibits. This could I suppose lead to confusion amongst muslims regarding what is acceptable islamic practice.

Gandalf, you have listed a number of goals in an apparent order of 'Islamic priority'. What principle is this based on?


Quote:

Thats a loaded question FD, as there are many different aspects to sharia.

I don't see how that makes the question loaded. I went to some effort to unload it before posting.


Quote:

As for specific laws that implement the sharia, there are a couple of ways of looking at it.

Which is the correct way, from an Islamic perspective?


Quote:

Importantly though, this shouldn't apply for muslims living in non-muslim majority countries

Why not? Is this an Islamic principle, or your own democratic principles?

What licence does Islam give Muslims when they become the majority, or the most powerful minority?


Quote:

Of course these muslims have a right (and a duty as muslims) to democratically and peacefully campaign to freely practice their islamic duties.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by duties? Is this a personal thing, or does it include controlling or punishing others?


Quote:

However this does not give them the right to disobey any laws that are currently in place prohibiting islamic practices. In fact the quran itself tells muslims who experience such restrictions in non-muslim countries to move to somewhere where such restrictions are not in place.

What practices does this apply to? Obviously Muslims can't establish Shariah law here. Does that mean they are obligued to leave?


Quote:

After that, actually codifying islamic law into the common law seems almost redundant to me.

Are you saying that dealing with criminals legally is somehow redundant? Did you intend to distinguish common and statutory law?


Quote:

Having said that, I can understand the other side of the argument - where, for example, if alcohol is not banned in the books, it can be seen as an official sanctioning of something that islam specifically prohibits. This could I suppose lead to confusion amongst muslims regarding what is acceptable islamic practice.

How should such conundrums be resolved?

Lets not overly complicate this FD, the "principles" - as you put it - that I base these priorities on is quite simple: namely that muslims should be free to perform their islamic duties in muslim societies, and furthermore, that these freedoms should - if necessary - be protected by law.

These include the freedom to perform the obligatory 5 prayers per day - in congregation if desired, freedom to wear islamic attire in public, freedom of peaceful religious gatherings etc. Pretty universal stuff that is supported in most progressive countries. Of course in muslim majority countries, this should go further than merely allowing islamic practices - to actively facilitating them. This would include providing prayer facilities in the work place, making halal meat standard, institutionalising zakat payment and providing services to help people perform the haj. Just off the top of my head.

Thats the priority for me in muslim countries - allowing full freedom of islamic practice at a minimum, but more preferably institutionalizing the facilitation of these practices to promote islamic rules and morals within society.

Going beyond that and having the state enforce the practice of islamic law to me is less important, and IMO goes against the quranic command that their be no compulsion in religion. 


Also, regarding muslims living under non-muslim societies. Islam considers muslims in these situations living under a covenant (the law of the land), which must be strictly obeyed:


Quote:

The Islamic religion commands believers to obey the laws of the land they live in, even if it be one ruled by nonbelievers.  Muslim jurists consider citizenship (or visa) to be a covenant (aqd) held between the citizen (or visa holder) and the state, one which guarantees safe passage/security (amaan) in exchange for certain obligations (such as obeying the laws of the land); covenants are considered sacredly binding in Islam.  The Quran commands:     And fulfill every covenant.  Verily, you will be held accountable with regard to the covenants. (Quran, 17:34) The Quran condemns those who break covenants as not being true believers:     It is not the case that every time they make a covenant, some party among them throws it aside. Nay! The truth is most of them believe not. (Quran, 2:100) The Islamic prophet Muhammad described the religious hypocrite as follows:     When he enters into a covenant, he proves treacherous. (Sahih al-Bukhari)

http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/major-nidal-hasan/

Quote:

Of course in muslim majority countries, this should go further

There you go using the term majority again. I suspect you are projecting western concepts of democracy onto Islam. Either that, or you have somehow found an answer to the question that no other Muslim was willing to answer for me.


Quote:

institutionalising zakat payment

Does that include Jizya - the infidel tax?


Quote:

Going beyond that and having the state enforce the practice of islamic law to me is less important, and IMO goes against the quranic command that their be no compulsion in religion.

Are you suggesting that the Koran contradicts Shariah law? Do you think you reflect mainstream Islamic scholarly opinion in this?

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2013 at 9:50pm:

There you go using the term majority again. I suspect you are projecting western concepts of democracy onto Islam. Either that, or you have somehow found an answer to the question that no other Muslim was willing to answer for me.

your point being?


freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2013 at 9:50pm:

Does that include Jizya - the infidel tax?

Stop trying to turn my argument into something sinister. All I'm talking about is implementing a state-run system that assists muslims who are diligent about performing their islamic duties. Such institutions should have zero negative impact to the non-muslim population.


freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2013 at 9:50pm:

Are you suggesting that the Koran contradicts Shariah law?

Considering the quran *IS* shariah law, that would make zero sense. The core islamic duties are essentially private matters that can't be enforced by man-made laws. No one ever stands over a muslim with a stick ensuring that he perform the 5 prayers every day. Nor do they force anyone on a plane and send them off to perform the hajj. The purpose of man-made islamic laws is less about forcing islamic practices than protecting the cohesiveness of the islamic society. Thus adultery laws are aimed at preventing the break up of families, banning alcohol and theft helps preserve public order etc. 

Quote:

your point being?

I am trying to ask you whether this concept of majority dictating Islam's licence is an Islamic concept or whether you are projecting concepts like democracy onto Islam.


Quote:

Stop trying to turn my argument into something sinister. All I'm talking about is implementing a state-run system that assists muslims who are diligent about performing their islamic duties. Such institutions should have zero negative impact to the non-muslim population.

Are you now suggesting it is a Muslim-only tax?


Quote:

Considering the quran *IS* shariah law, that would make zero sense.

Just like what you said makes no sense. Perhaps you should rephrase it into something that is linguistically sensible?


Quote:

The purpose of man-made islamic laws is less about forcing islamic practices than protecting the cohesiveness of the islamic society. Thus adultery laws are aimed at preventing the break up of families, banning alcohol and theft helps preserve public order etc.

So are you suggesting that the Koran contradicts these laws?

When you say it is 'less' about forcing Islamic practices, does that mean that it is about forcing Islamic practices, but you are trying to shift the emphasis to the more benign aspects?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 8:30am:

I am trying to ask you whether this concept of majority dictating Islam's licence is an Islamic concept or whether you are projecting concepts like democracy onto Islam.

Again, the issue is a great deal simpler than you're making it out to be. Call it what you will, but fundamentally its an issue of basic human rights. The right to freedom of religion. But in regards to shariah, thats the bare minimum, and it should go further. Where a society, or nation has a population that is predominantly muslim, you have what can be described as an "islamic society". And as governments tend to reflect the society that they govern (even those we consider undemocratic), it follows that an islamic society should have a government that supports and promotes islamic values. If you are looking for a model that provides this - at the same time as not infringing the rights of the significant non-muslim population, Malaysia works pretty well.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 8:30am:

Are you now suggesting it is a Muslim-only tax?

Yes, the zakat is a muslim-only tax. Obviously this is over and above regular income and other taxes - which everyone -muslim and non-muslim - pays.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 8:30am:

So are you suggesting that the Koran contradicts these laws?

no, thats you confusing yourself in a desperate effort to trip me up on something - anything.

The quran gives the prescription for what is and isn't allowed, and is backed up by the hadith and sunna (islamic law). The difference is, the quran does not always mention what earthly punishment should be metted out to whoever breaks these laws. For this, islamic scholars turn to the actions and orders of the prophet. Thus there is no contradiction anywhere. For example the quran makes it clear adultery is haram, but the punishment only comes from the hadith.

Clearly the two sources of islamic law compliment, not contradict each other. My view is that the most important purpose of sharia is to allow (at a minimum) and then promote muslims practicing islamic law. This also is in no way contradictory. Whether or not haram behaviour amongst muslims should be met with specific sunnah punishment is really a separate issue - and one which I can appreciate the arguments of both sides.

Quote:

Again, the issue is a great deal simpler than you're making it out to be. Call it what you will, but fundamentally its an issue of basic human rights. The right to freedom of religion.

Can you explain how imposing Shariah law on people is about fundamental human rights? Normally when people say this they mean the protection of those rights. Is that what you meant?


Quote:

Where a society, or nation has a population that is predominantly muslim, you have what can be described as an "islamic society". And as governments tend to reflect the society that they govern (even those we consider undemocratic), it follows that an islamic society should have a government that supports and promotes islamic values.

Are you deliberately shying away from using the term 'majority' now?


Quote:

If you are looking for a model that provides this - at the same time as not infringing the rights of the significant non-muslim population, Malaysia works pretty well.

Only because it rejects a great deal of Islam. There is a clear trend as you go east from Mecca for a watering down of Islam. This is probably out of survival instincts.


Quote:

Yes, the zakat is a muslim-only tax. Obviously this is over and above regular income and other taxes - which everyone -muslim and non-muslim - pays.

So you would legislate that Muslims pay more tax than non-Muslims?


Quote:

Clearly the two sources of islamic law compliment, not contradict each other.

This appears to be a contradiction:


Quote:

Going beyond that and having the state enforce the practice of islamic law to me is less important, and IMO goes against the quranic command that their be no compulsion in religion.

Quote:

Whether or not haram behaviour amongst muslims should be met with specific sunnah punishment is really a separate issue - and one which I can appreciate the arguments of both sides.

Even the ones that clearly contravene fundamental human rights?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Can you explain how imposing Shariah law on people is about fundamental human rights?

No I can't because its not. Nowhere in my argument have I talked about the need to impose anything. As I've said all along, my ideal shariah society, is one which facilitates and promotes personal islamic duties - not enforces them. Let there be no compulsion in religion - so says the quran, which I've mentioned 3 times now I believe.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Are you deliberately shying away from using the term 'majority' now?

Fine. Replace "predominantly muslim" to "majority muslim" if it makes you feel better. I'm sure it makes a massive amount of difference.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

Only because it rejects a great deal of Islam. There is a clear trend as you go east from Mecca for a watering down of Islam. This is probably out of survival instincts.

probably  ::)

you couldn't be more wrong about Malaysia. Malay's have a very good reputation around the world as particularly pious and genuine in their islamic dedication. Malaysia is also renound as being a rich islamic cultural and intellectual centre. Nontheless, they do have nearly 50% of the population that is non-muslim, so they have to weigh that in. Overall I think they do a pretty good job of committing to being an all-inclusive society (eg the '1Malaysia' program), while at the same time facilitating and promoting the islamic duties for its Malay-majority population.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

So you would legislate that Muslims pay more tax than non-Muslims?

what? You seem to be under the misapprehension that I advocated compulsory zakat somewhere. I didn't. I did say that islamic societies should "institutionalise" the system - not making it compulsory, but using state resources to promote, standardise, streamline etc the process.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

This appears to be a contradiction:

What you quoted is not contraditory, but it is true that enforcement of sharia law seems to contradict the quranic command that there be no compulsion in religion. But then again, the punishments are only required where the social order of the islamic society is put at risk (eg adultery and alcohol). Like I said, no sharia system has a big man with a stick standing over you forcing you to pray, or bundling you into a plane to perform the haj.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:43pm:

What you quoted is not contraditory, but it is true that enforcement of sharia law seems to contradict the quranic command that there be no compulsion in religion. But then again, the punishments are only required where the social order of the islamic society is put at risk (eg adultery and alcohol). Like I said, no sharia system has a big man with a stick standing over you forcing you to pray, or bundling you into a plane to perform the haj.

I guess that would make the Taliban unIslamic. What do you think?

^ not an unreasonable assumption. There were certainly a lot of unislamic aspects to their rule - such as banning women from going to school and enforcing the burqa. That said, the taliban is a bad example given the extraordinary circumstances at the time. They took over a bankrupt nation that was in complete anarchy. And throughout their rule they were at constant war. I've heard it stated that 90% of government revenue went towards the war effort. Little wonder then that they were so beholden to the cash-strapped Saudi militants who invited themselves in. In fact the notorious female education thing was an economic decision too - the taliban insisted on segregated education, and while the boys got the existing schools, they literally had no money to build any girl schools. And actually its a myth that girl schools were banned - since there were quite a few home-run schools for girls that were allowed.

The dire economic situation led to some shrewd, if pretty morally dubious actions - most notably with the poppies - allow their cultivation until there was a record bumper crop, then immediately ban it, and voila - your sitting on record harvest while the price of poppies goes through the roof.

So yes the taliban were/are extreme, but they were also in a pretty desperate situation economically - and thus some of their extreme measures can be attributed to that. Less excusable is the salafists who control mega rich Saudi Arabia, and do such lovely things as block girls climbing out of a burning dormitory because they are inappropriately dressed - and watch them burn to death.

Just out of interest, do you know if they reintroduced stonings?

According to wikipedia and the kite runner they did. Have you seen that movie? Its a real tear jerker.

Quote:

Fine. Replace "predominantly muslim" to "majority muslim" if it makes you feel better. I'm sure it makes a massive amount of difference.

The reason I keep asking is because I could never get any of the other Muslims to talk about how they ought to change the system of government to an Islamic one. The question was apparently way too 'loaded' for them. You appeared to say that the majority becoming Muslim is some kind of criteria, but it never happened that way in the past, and Islam does not take much interest in democracy.


Quote:

Nontheless, they do have nearly 50% of the population that is non-muslim, so they have to weigh that in.

Apparently they achieved 100% Muslims in the Arabian peninsula by voluntary conversion and forced migration.


Quote:

what? You seem to be under the misapprehension that I advocated compulsory zakat somewhere.

It was in the context of legislation. Is zakat traditionally voluntary?


Quote:

I did say that islamic societies should "institutionalise" the system - not making it compulsory, but using state resources to promote, standardise, streamline etc the process.

That sounds a bit naive to me. And getting the government involved is hardly going to encourage people to give voluntarily.


Quote:

What you quoted is not contraditory, but it is true that enforcement of sharia law seems to contradict the quranic command that there be no compulsion in religion.

You appear to be contradicting yourself again.


Quote:

But then again, the punishments are only required where the social order of the islamic society is put at risk (eg adultery and alcohol).

That doesn't make sense, as the committing of any crimes could be taken as putting society at risk. Are you suggesting there are some scenarios in which the law is ignored because everyone is getting along nicely?


Quote:

Like I said, no sharia system has a big man with a stick standing over you forcing you to pray, or bundling you into a plane to perform the haj.

But military service is comulsory, isn't it? Unless you can buy your way out?


Quote:

^ not an unreasonable assumption. There were certainly a lot of unislamic aspects to their rule - such as banning women from going to school and enforcing the burqa.

Falah described them as the last true Islamic government on earth. Abu disagreed with him. I guess there really is a range of opinions among Muslims.


Quote:

That said, the taliban is a bad example given the extraordinary circumstances at the time. They took over a bankrupt nation that was in complete anarchy. And throughout their rule they were at constant war. I've heard it stated that 90% of government revenue went towards the war effort.

There was a long period without war. The Americans ignored their declaration of war for as long as possible (ie until 9/11).


Quote:

The dire economic situation led to some shrewd, if pretty morally dubious actions - most notably with the poppies - allow their cultivation until there was a record bumper crop, then immediately ban it, and voila - your sitting on record harvest while the price of poppies goes through the roof.

It only goes through the roof if you actually stop selling it. You can't have it both ways.


Quote:

So yes the taliban were/are extreme, but they were also in a pretty desperate situation economically - and thus some of their extreme measures can be attributed to that.

Whats the word for constantly excusing the actions of other Muslims?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

You appeared to say that the majority becoming Muslim is some kind of criteria

Isn't that logical? Like I said, when a population becomes majority muslim, then by definition it becomes an 'islamic society', and it surely follows that an islamic system should then be implemented.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

but it never happened that way in the past

Are you sure? You don't think Iran was majority muslim when it overthrew the shah and implemented an islamic theocracy? Really?? What about Afghanistan when the taliban moved in and implemented their islamic regime? What were the Afghans then? Budhist? Scientologists? Jedi?

...Somalia, Maldives, Chechnya, Gaza, the list is endless.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

Islam does not take much interest in democracy

What exactly do you mean by democracy? If its simply allowing to vote for government, then islam very much has it.

from wikipedia:

Quote:

In theory, the organization of a caliphate should be a constitutional republic[1] (the Constitution being the Constitution of Medina), which means that the head of state, the Caliph, and other officials are representatives of the people and of Islam and must govern according to constitutional and religious law, or Sharia. In its early days, the first caliphate resembled elements of direct democracy (see shura) and an elective monarchy.[2] ...Sunni Islam stipulates that the head of state, the caliph, should be elected by Shura – elected by Muslims or their representatives

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

That doesn't make sense, as the committing of any crimes could be taken as putting society at risk. Are you suggesting there are some scenarios in which the law is ignored because everyone is getting along nicely?

Again you are confused, and this stems from your misunderstanding about what sharia is. Sharia is basically everything a muslim is obligated to do - from prayer, to fasting, to abstaining from alcohol, to fidelity. What you need to get it through your head is that for the vast majority of these obligations, there is no islamically prescribed earthly law or punishment to force muslims to perform them. Thus they are not "crimes" as you would understand the concept. My point, again, is that for the few acts that have a prescribed earthly punishment, these are in place because these acts have a direct detrimental effect on society - adultery ruins the family, and alcohol affects social order.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

Falah described them as the last true Islamic government on earth. Abu disagreed with him. I guess there really is a range of opinions among Muslims.

Good to see you're finally understanding that.  :) Now if only you would acknowledge these ranges in your wiki.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

There was a long period without war. The Americans ignored their declaration of war for as long as possible (ie until 9/11).

No, I'm not talking about the war with the US. The taliban was basically finished as soon as 9/11 happened. But during their entire rule - from 1994 to 2001, they were at war with the so called 'northern alliance' - General Dostum and Massoud, and all the rest of them.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

It only goes through the roof if you actually stop selling it. You can't have it both ways.

No, markets anticipate. The taliban were shrewd because they made the crackdown on poppies very overtly to the world. This had the intended effect - scared the market, and prices skyrocketed in response. The taliban then could sell the final harvest at record prices.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

Whats the word for constantly excusing the actions of other Muslims?

Selective aren't we? Funny you made no mention of my scathing attack on the salafists who control Saudi Arabia.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 12:27pm: Can you explain how imposing Shariah law on people is about fundamental human rights? No I can't because its not. Nowhere in my argument have I talked about the need to impose anything. As I've said all along, my ideal shariah society, is one which facilitates and promotes personal islamic duties - not enforces them. Let there be no compulsion in religion - so says the quran, which I've mentioned 3 times now I believe.

If gandalf is correct [above] then it is clear that gandalf knows much more about ISLAMIC jurisprudence, than either common-all ISLAMIC clerics, and even, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.


Let there be no compulsion in religion - so says the quran  ?????




Quote:

Pakistani cleric: 'We want Islamic law for all Pakistan and then the world. We would like to do this by preaching. But if not then we would use force.'

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/pakistani-cleric-we-want-islamic-law-for-all-pakistan-and-then-the-world-we-would-like-to-do-this-by.html




Quote:

Creed of the sword September 23, 2006 ...the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh. ...Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric also explained.....THE THIRD OPTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST NON-MUSLIMS WAS ONLY A LAST RESORT, IF THEY REFUSED TO CONVERT OR SURRENDER PEACEFULLY TO THE ARMIES OF ISLAM. ...The resulting doctrine of war was described by the great medieval philosopher Ibn Khaldun: "In the Muslim community, the holy war (jihad) is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and the (obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." (The Muqaddimah)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/creed-of-the-sword/story-e6frg6n6-1111112254761


Google;
"Let there be no compulsion in religion" abrogated




Somehow, it must be the case, that it is either gandalf,
OR,
it is moslem clerics,    ....that are misunderstanding ISLAM.

I wonder who it is ?



+++

IMO, it is clear that gandalf is either an ignorant [a NOT-rightly-guided] moslem,
OR,
gandalf is a moslem who is intentionally misrepresenting what ISLAM is, to Australian 'unbelievers' on this forum.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2013 at 12:27pm: Can you explain how imposing Shariah law on people is about fundamental human rights? No I can't because its not. Nowhere in my argument have I talked about the need to impose anything. As I've said all along, my ideal shariah society, is one which facilitates and promotes personal islamic duties - not enforces them. Let there be no compulsion in religion - so says the quran, which I've mentioned 3 times now I believe.

Let there be no compulsion in religion - so says the quran
.....and gandalf

Right ???





AND,
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 2:43pm:

What you quoted is not contraditory, but it is true that enforcement of sharia law seems to contradict the quranic command that there be no compulsion in religion. But then again, the punishments are only required where the social order of the islamic society is put at risk (eg adultery and alcohol). Like I said, no sharia system has a big man with a stick standing over you forcing you to pray, or bundling you into a plane to perform the haj.

Let there be no compulsion in religion - so says the quran
.....and gandalf

Right ???i
ISLAMIC texts, justify, AND, MAKE LAWFUL, the killing of people who 'disrespect' ISLAM, by neglecting their daily prayers.......


FROM ISLAMIC LAW

"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."




FROM THE SUNNA OF MOHAMMED

"...If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260





+++

But we on OzPol can be certain that gandalf knows much more about ISLAMIC jurisprudence, than either common-all ISLAMIC clerics, and even, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.
/sarc off


My only question is;
If gandalf knows so much about ISLAMIC jurisprudence, then why doesn't he travel to Saudi Arabia, to debate with the clerics and set them right, about what is permitted by ISLAM ?

And Abu, and falah too!




+++

AGAIN, imo, it is clear that gandalf is either an ignorant [i.e. he is NOT a rightly-guided] moslem,
OR,
gandalf is a moslem who is intentionally misrepresenting what ISLAM is, to Australian 'unbelievers' on this forum.

Which is it gandalf ?

Quote:

What you quoted is not contraditory, but it is true that enforcement of sharia law seems to contradict the quranic command that there be no compulsion in religion.

You missed this one Gandalf. Can you explain why the apparent contradiction is not actually a contradiction? Yadda appears to be onto this also.


Quote:

Isn't that logical?

Obviously it is logical. I was asking if it was Islamic.


Quote:

Like I said, when a population becomes majority muslim, then by definition it becomes an 'islamic society'

Whose definition? Abu went to a lot of effort to reject this concept.


Quote:

and it surely follows that an islamic system should then be implemented.

I wouldn't go that far. But it depends on what you mean by an Islamic system. I still haven't got my head around all these apparent contradictions that are not actually contradictions.


Quote:

Are you sure? You don't think Iran was majority muslim when it overthrew the shah and implemented an islamic theocracy?

Sorry I am so used to Muslims complaining that these are not proper Islamic states. I don't think the Iranians woke up one morning and realised they were a majority muslim nation so they now had a licence according to Islam to set up an Islamic state.


Quote:

What exactly do you mean by democracy? If its simply allowing to vote for government, then islam very much has it.

If the outcome is predetermined then it is not democracy. Democracy means rule by majority.


Quote:

Funny you made no mention of my scathing attack on the salafists who control Saudi Arabia.

Abu was also very critical of them. He did not consider them to be Muslims.

Is the reason that gandalf and Abu, and falah would be unwilling to travel to Saudi Arabia [for the purpose, to try to debate with ISLAMIC clerics in Saudi Arabia, about the need for moslems to embrace religious tolerance [even among differing moslem sects!], because gandalf and Abu, and falah are all well aware that ISLAMIC doctrine does not respect the call that is made in Koran 2:256, for religious tolerance ???

And, because gandalf and Abu, and falah know that the swords in Saudi Arabia are very sharp, and, because they all want their torso's to remain attached to their heads ?


OR, is the reason why gandalf and Abu, and falah would not entertain the idea OF TRYING TO REASON WITH OTHER MOSLEMS, because they understand all too well, that the call for religious tolerance in Koran 2:256, is an insincere 'religious' abstraction, which is used by moslems, to INTENTIONALLY misrepresent ISLAM to 'unbelievers' ???








"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things."
Koran 2.256




It is not a nice fate, that is waiting for the deceivers.

For those who are impersonating believers...

"Then, on the Day of Judgment,.....Then would they offer submission (with the pretence), "We did no evil (knowingly)." (The angels will reply), "Nay, but verily [God] knoweth all that ye did;"
Koran 16.27



+++




"Dear muslim, YOU are the kuffar"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229682951/0#0

Quote:

Dear muslim, YOU are the kuffar, YOU are the unbeliever. You who embrace ISLAM, your own lies and deception, have become a witness against you, before God. You muslims insist that ONLY muslims are the 'properly guided'. Is he who is on a path of lies and deception, 'properly guided'?? AN EXPLANATION OF THE WORD 'KUFFAR'... "kuffar" = = "...is an Arabic word meaning.....[an unbeliever] a person....who hides, denies, or covers the truth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuffar

Yadda wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 11:25pm:

Is the reason that gandalf and Abu, and falah would be unwilling to travel to Saudi Arabia [for the purpose, to try to debate with ISLAMIC clerics in Saudi Arabia, about the need for moslems to embrace religious tolerance [even among differing moslem sects!], because gandalf and Abu, and falah are all well aware that ISLAMIC doctrine does not respect the call that is made in Koran 2:256, for religious tolerance ???

Is it true that Yadda would be unwilling to travel to Sydney [for the purpose, to try to debate with Christian leaders like Cardinal Pell and Peter Jensen in Sydney, about the need for Christians to embrace religious intolerance [even among differing Christian denominations!], because Yadda is all aware that his view does not respect the call that is made in Matthew 23?

I think Malik left after he found out what Abu's views on Shites are - ie that they are OK so long as they keep their mouth shut, otherwise they risk the death penalty. That is what 'disrespect' means in Islam.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 10:27pm:

You missed this one Gandalf. Can you explain why the apparent contradiction is not actually a contradiction? Yadda appears to be onto this also.

I'm sorry, remind me again what is contradictory? I've lost track amongst all the inane banter.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 10:27pm:

Whose definition? Abu went to a lot of effort to reject this concept.

Its not a concept, its a simple definition. Would you say a nation of muslims is a muslim society? Obviously. So why not call it an "islamic" society? Same thing.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 10:27pm:

I don't think the Iranians woke up one morning and realised they were a majority muslim nation so they now had a licence according to Islam to set up an Islamic state.

I think thats pretty much exactly what happened - figuratively speaking. Replace "one morning" with the period of mass protests between 1977 to 1979, when the Iranians "realised" that that as a large muslim nation that was the cultural centre of world shiism, it was a disgrace to be a western puppet, and should be an islamic nation.


freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 10:27pm:

If the outcome is predetermined then it is not democracy. Democracy means rule by majority.

elections are not predetermined - unless its one that involves Hamid Karzai. All that is 'predetermined' is that the nation will remain islamic. Yet, you say yourself that democracy is 'rule by majority' - so when the majority is muslim, its reasonable to assume that the will of that majority is to keep the islamic nature of the state regardless of the election outcome.


Yadda wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 9:30pm:

FROM ISLAMIC LAW "Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan.

Yadda, do you understand there are categories of hadith from those that are of soundest reliability (sahih), to those that are of least reliability (da'if)? You preface this hadith with a statement that it is "islamic law" - yet you have no idea about the chain of narration of this hadith and how much worth it is given by islamic scholars in terms of 'islamic law' do you? Can you actually quote a single islamic scholar quoting this hadith to argue that failure to perform prayer, haj or fasting justifies killing?

By far the most important source of islamic law remains the quran, and my claim is not just backed up by 2:256. You argue (ignorantly) that the prophet order compulsion in religion, well what does the quran itself say about the prophet?


Quote:

“Therefore, do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish. Thou art not one to manage (people’s) affairs.” (Al-Gashiya, 88/21-22).“If then they turn away, We have not sent thee as a guard over them. Thy duty is but to convey (The Message).” (Al-Shura, 42/48).

Quote:

“Verily We have revealed the Book to thee in Truth, for (instructing) mankind. He, then, that receives guidance benefits his own soul: But he that strays injures his own soul. Nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs.” (Al-Zumar, 39/41).

Quote:

“The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message)” (Al-Nur, 24/54). “Say: “O ye men! Now Truth hath reached you from your Lord! Those who receive guidance, do so for the good of their own souls; those who stray, do so to their own loss; And I am not (set) over you to arrange your affairs.” (Yunus, 10/108).

http://www.lastprophet.info/freedom-of-faith-in-the-practice-of-prophet-muhammad

Quote:

I'm sorry, remind me again what is contradictory? I've lost track amongst all the inane banter.

Shariah law and the 'no compulsion in religion' thing.

I've spoke at length about that. If there's something about my detailed explanation that you still don't understand please specify.

Let's start with whether it is an actual contradiction or merely an apparent contradiction.

Also, I didn't realise you were attempting to explain away the contradiction. Was your argument that because it is not a 'priority' it is not a contradiction? Was the millennium of violence and crushing oppression just some kind of afterthought?

Your still not being clear FD. Again, what is specifically contradictory? My recollection is that we were talking about the quran compared to the hadith, but now you're talking about the behaviour of muslims. So its very confusing. Please give me a specific example.

I think the best example to start with is the one that you already conceded is an apparent contradiction. This will allow you to specify the contradiction yourself and you will not have to play this silly game of defining a question to the nth degree as a way of avoiding answering it.

freediver wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

I think the best example to start with is the one that you already conceded is an apparent contradiction.

well don't be shy, tell me exactly what I said. I'm not playing any games, I genuinely don't know what you are referring to. If you want to discuss something, tell me exactly what you want to discuss instead of being cryptic and making me guess what it is.

FD you spend 90% of your time here quoting what people say, why is it so hard for you to do it now?

You mean like the last three times I quoted you and you pretended not to know what I was talking about? Here goes nothing:


Quote:

Going beyond that and having the state enforce the practice of islamic law to me is less important, and IMO goes against the quranic command that their be no compulsion in religion.

Quote:

but it is true that enforcement of sharia law seems to contradict the quranic command that there be no compulsion in religion.

Well thats easy FD, see if you bothered taking note of what I said, you would see that I never actually conceded that enforcement of sharia is necessarily part of islamic law. It is something I am still uncertain on - and in fact its the contradiction with specific quranic verses that leads me to doubt that it is. The quran is more interested in personal/spiritual benefits, rather than societal benefits (though actually the personal benefits lead to societal benefits). 

Having said that, man made laws and punishments are absolutely essential for the maintenance of social order and stability - irrespective of what any religion says about it. No one would ever say that murder shouldn't be a punishable offense - but you don't see westerners objecting to it just because having a punishment for it is consistent with christian doctrine. Likewise, there are good reasons from a social harmony perspective for punishing adultery and alcohol consumption that are quite separate to it being forbidden by the quran. And in fact many non-islamic societies in the past had prohibitions on these acts.

Personally, I don’t know what’s wrong with having inconsistent views. We’ve all got them.

Gandalf’s free to practice his religion and vote for who he wants. Doesn’t sound like the Taliban are running anytime soon, and I doubt Gandalf would vote for them anyway.

Abu, on the other hand...

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

Well thats easy FD, see if you bothered taking note of what I said, you would see that I never actually conceded that enforcement of sharia is necessarily part of islamic law. It is something I am still uncertain on - and in fact its the contradiction with specific quranic verses that leads me to doubt that it is. The quran is more interested in personal/spiritual benefits, rather than societal benefits (though actually the personal benefits lead to societal benefits).  Having said that, man made laws and punishments are absolutely essential for the maintenance of social order and stability - irrespective of what any religion says about it. No one would ever say that murder shouldn't be a punishable offense - but you don't see westerners objecting to it just because having a punishment for it is consistent with christian doctrine. Likewise, there are good reasons from a social harmony perspective for punishing adultery and alcohol consumption that are quite separate to it being forbidden by the quran. And in fact many non-islamic societies in the past had prohibitions on these acts.

gandalf,

Almost all jurisdictions [both religious and secular] condemn murder.

But not all jurisdictions define what 'murder' is, in the same way.




ISLAMIC law defines the unlawful killing of a moslem [almost exclusively, only a moslem] as murder.

Many secular jurisdictions make no such 'distinction'.

Almost all non-moslem jurisdictions treat the unlawful killing of any person as murder.

e.g.
gandalf,

I, Yadda, am regarded as an infidel, and i oppose the influence of ISLAM being spread in Australia.

You gandalf claim to be a moslem.

SCENARIO #1,
If Yadda cut gandalf's throat [here in Australia] for whatever reason, i would rightly be charged with murder.

SCENARIO #2,
If gandalf, knowing that Yadda was an infidel who opposed Allah's perfect religion, cut Yadda's throat within a devout Sharia jurisdiction [e.g. Yemen], gandalf would be praised for righteously killing [NOT MURDERING] an infidel who resisted ISLAM/Allah's perfect religion.





There is no respect for a 'Golden Rule', in ISLAM.


Quote:

AN ETHICAL BASIS FOR WAR by Bill Warner (Jan 2007) "......Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and most atheists agree that lying, theft, murder, destroying the sanctity of family, and lusting after other people’s property is bad behavior. Upon reflection, all of these prohibitions prevent harm to others. We don’t harm others and we don’t want to be harmed. We all want to be treated well and this is the best way to treat others, hence the Golden Rule: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule is an ethic of unity. Everyone is treated the same. One ethical system for all people. This has been said in many ways in many religions and cultures. But there is a religion and culture that does not agree with these ethics—Islam. ......What are Islamic ethics and where do we find them? .....A Muslim should be a brother to other Muslims (not the rest of humanity). A Muslim should not kill another Muslim. A Muslim may lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam. So for Islam the ethical statements are: Do not kill another Muslim. Do not steal from another Muslim. Do not deceive another Muslim. Islam divides the entire world into Islam and nonbelievers and has two sets of ethics, one for Islam and another for the rest. The Golden Rule has the equality of all humanity as its basis. It is not: Do unto some people, as you would have them do unto you, but do unto all people as you would have them do unto you. Islam denies the universality of the Golden Rule because Islam starts with the division of the entire world, all humanity, into two different groups—Islamic and non-Islamic. Every aspect of Islamic ethics is based upon this separation. Having two distinct groups leads to two different ethical codes. Said another way, Islam has dualistic ethics. Deceit, violence and force are optional actions against the unbelievers. Believers are to be treated as brothers and sisters. Islam’s ethics are based upon: Good is whatever advances Islam. Evil is whatever resists Islam. ......the whole world must submit to Islam; nonbelievers are the enemy simply because they are not Muslims. To achieve this dominance, Islam may use terror and violence. It may use psychological warfare, fear, and theft. It may take the spoils of war from non-Muslims. Violence and terror are made sacred by the Koran. Peace comes only with submission to Islam.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=5208&sec_id=5208



"Peace LAWLESSNESS comes with submission to Islam"

Yadda wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 10:16pm:

gandalf, Almost all jurisdictions [both religious and secular] condemn murder. But not all jurisdictions define what 'murder' is, in the same way. ISLAMIC law defines the unlawful killing of a moslem [almost exclusively, only a moslem] as murder.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352933495/77#77

Quote:

Under Sharia law..... If a non-moslem kills a moslem, the non-moslem MUST die. But if a moslem kills a non-moslem, the moslem MUST NOT die. "....I asked, "What is on this paper?" He replied, "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives,  and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)." " hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.083.050 "....I asked, "What is written in this paper?" He replied, "(The regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel." " hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.283 Why is this so ??? This is because 'disbelievers' have no 'automatic' protection, in ISLAMIC law. as per.... "....those who reject Allah have no protector." Koran 47.008 v. 8-11 Because they are, disbelievers, all disbelievers are essentially 'outlaws', and may be 'lawfully' treated with disdain and enmity ['lawful' hated], by all moslems.

It is impossible for a non-moslem to reason [in debate] with a moslem.

Moslems are always correct, because they are moslems.

Dis-believers are always incorrect, because they are dis-believers.

ISLAM, the Koran, and Allah say so, so it is truth.






If a non-moslem confronts a moslem with facts [in debate] that defeat the argument of the moslem, the moslem will always deflect or deny, or claim that the person with the confronting, verifiable facts is 'misunderstanding', or, 'misrepresenting' something about ISLAM, or what moslems believe.

It is impossible for a non-moslem to reason with a moslem.

That is why conflict with a 'guest' moslem community is always unavoidable, once the number of moslems in any 'host' 'infidel' jurisdiction is able to begin to overwhelm the 'law & order' resources of the 'host' 'infidel' jurisdiction.

And the conflict between the non-moslem and moslem communities is always blamed on the 'intolerance' of the host non-moslem community, towards the moslems.

Thanks for that, Y. It’s good to know that if I ever want to knock off a Christian or Hindu or Jew, all I’ve got to do is take her on a little holiday to Bali or Malaysia or the Maldives and do it legally.

What’s the best way to do it, do you think? Tie her to the railway tracks? A bandsaw? Over a pool of tiger sharks?

How would your Moslem do it?

Karnal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

Thanks for that, Y. It’s good to know that if I ever want to knock off a Christian or Hindu or Jew, all I’ve got to do is take her on a little holiday to Bali or Malaysia or the Maldives and do it legally.

And all the while, from people such as yourself, ISLAM gets a 'pass'.

People such as yourself insist that ISLAM must NOT to be made accountable [blamed], for the violent conduct of moslems.

Why is that, K ?




ISLAM in Maldives is not a problem.
The moslems in Maldives are not a problem.

Google;
maldives sharia law



Quote:

About 923,000 results (0.31 seconds) Search Results     Islam in the Maldives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia     en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_Maldives     Islam is important in Maldives. The traditional Islamic law code of sharia, known in Dhivehi as sariatu, forms the basic law code of Maldives as interpreted to ...     Maldivian president: Islamic law bans music and art, mutilates girls ...     freethoughtnation.com › ... › Acharya S/D.M. Murdock     Dec 24, 2011 – In his candor, this Muslim president of an entirely Muslim nation has admitted to the world's press that Islamic/sharia law bans music, mutilates ...     Rape Victim to Be Flogged Under Islamic Law     www.breitbart.com/.../Rape-Victim-To-Be-Literally-Flogged-Under-I...     Jan 9, 2013 – Under Maldives' Islamic law, the authorities now intend to publicly flog the young rape victim. Public flogging is the penalty for "fornication," ...     Islamic coup in Maldives: members of new president's cabinet have ...     www.jihadwatch.org/.../islamic-coup-in-maldives-members-of-new-...     Feb 12, 2012 – MALE, Maldives (AP) — The Maldives' new president expanded his Cabinet on Sunday to include religious conservatives who have been ...     Thousands demonstrate in Maldives over Islamic law - - - San ...     old.richarddawkins.net/.../644350-thousands-demonstrate-in-maldive...     Thousands demonstrate in Maldives over Islamic law. By - - SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE Added: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:41:43 UTC. Thousands in the ...     Goodbye Democracy, Hello Oppression and Sharia Law in the ...     coffeeandsleeplessnights.wordpress.com/.../goodbye-democracy-hell...     Feb 16, 2012 – New President of the Maldives Expands His Cabinet 13 February 2012 The Maldives' new president has expanded his Cabinet to include ...

Karnal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

Thanks for that, Y. It’s good to know that if I ever want to knock off a Christian or Hindu or Jew, all I’ve got to do is take her on a little holiday to Bali or Malaysia or the Maldives and do it legally.

And all the while, from people such as yourself, ISLAM gets a 'pass'.

People such as yourself insist that ISLAM must NOT to be made accountable [blamed], for the violent conduct of moslems.

Why is that, K ?




ISLAM in Malaysia is not a problem.
The moslems in Malaysia are not a problem.

Do some Googling;

"Malaysia's Prime Minister: LGBTs, liberalism, and pluralism are enemies of Islam"
"Last Malaysian Hindu temple in central Kuala Lumpur condemned, given five days to vacate"
"Malaysian temple condemned, temple staff and devotees given 15 minutes to leave"
"Malaysian government views LGBT community as a 'spreading problem' to be stopped"
"Malaysian deputy prime minister: Islam not compatible with freedom, liberal thought"
"Yet another Malaysian non-Muslim house of worship demolished"
"Malaysian state holding seminar on "threat of Christianity" "
"A message from Malaysia's king: "Muslims need to emulate Prophet Muhammad" "

http://www.jihadwatch.org/malaysia/


FROM THE SUNNA OF MOHAMMED

"...If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

Karnal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 10:52pm:

Thanks for that, Y. It’s good to know that if I ever want to knock off a Christian or Hindu or Jew, all I’ve got to do is take her on a little holiday to Bali or Malaysia or the Maldives and do it legally.

And all the while, from people such as yourself, ISLAM gets a 'pass'.

People such as yourself insist that ISLAM must NOT to be made accountable [blamed], for the violent conduct of moslems.

Why is that, K ?




Bali, is in Indonesia.
ISLAM in Indonesia is not a problem.
The moslems in Indonesia are not a problem.

n.b.      Ahmadiyah & Shi'ites in Indonesia = = a wrong 'kind' of moslem = = an infidel

"Indonesian President at UN calls for legally binding Sharia blasphemy law criminalizing criticism of Islam"
"Indonesia: Catholic schools threatened with closure for not teaching Islam"
"Indonesia: Sunni Muslim preachers incited murder of Shi'ites"
"Indonesia: Ahmadiyah forced to apologize after being brutalized by Muslim mob"
"Modern, moderate Indonesia: Shi'ite cleric convicted of blasphemy, sentenced to two years in prison"
"Indonesia: Muslim mob attacks Ahmadiyya community, injuring four"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/indonesia/



Quote:

Bashir calls bombers 'counter-terrorists' June 26, 2007 HARDLINE Islamic cleric Abu Bakar Bashir said today that extremists blamed for Indonesian bombings were role models for other Muslims and feted them as "counter-terrorists." "There are no terrorists in Indonesia. What there are, are counter-terrorists," Bashir said. ......But he called on Indonesian Muslims to refrain from accusing people of terrorism, saying it would be tantamount to assisting the US. Bashir spoke at a press conference to announce plans, together with 13 lawyers from the "Team for the Defence of Muslims," to file a suit demanding that Indonesia's counter-terrorism police unit be disbanded. Lawyer Munarman alleged that the counter-terrorism squad was financed opaquely by the US, sought to make war against Islam and used torture to secure admissions from suspects. He also said that the squad was discriminatory as it only acted against Muslims, adding the team planned to file the suit on tomorrow at the South Jakarta district court. Bashir has redoubled his efforts to get Sharia law enforced in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, since his release from prison.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21973518-23109,00.html








Good moslems will declare [to non-moslems] until they are blue in the face, that;


"All moslems condemn terrorism."



But when moslems make such public assertions, moslems never reveal that ISLAMISTS [themselves!] define 'terrorism' as, ...resisting Allah's will.



And even when moslems use intimidation and violence to spread Allah's 'perfect' religion,
....that is Allah's will.


Which then allows ISLAM and moslems [in their minds] a total abrogation of any moral responsibility, for all conflicts with disbelievers.

Google;
those who resist Islam cause wars, and are responsible for them



According to ISLAM / moslems...

To use intimidation and violence to spread Allah's 'perfect' religion - IS NOT TERRORISM.

But for non-moslems to actively resist moslem intimidation and violence [moslem terrorism!] to spread Allah's 'perfect' religion - IS TERRORISM.




According to ISLAM / moslems...

Terrorism is only what non-moslems do, when they resist the spread and influence of ISLAM, through the use of moslem violence and deception.




+++

A moslem cannot be, a 'terrorist'.
......according to ISLAM.

Well, i and many others, know differently.

We know it, even though people like K choose to impersonate imbeciles, who would refuse to acknowledge what is happening in front of their noses, because their worldview will not allow them to acknowledge the iniquity, wrongdoing and violence which ISLAM sanctions.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

Well thats easy FD, see if you bothered taking note of what I said, you would see that I never actually conceded that enforcement of sharia is necessarily part of islamic law. It is something I am still uncertain on - and in fact its the contradiction with specific quranic verses that leads me to doubt that it is. The quran is more interested in personal/spiritual benefits, rather than societal benefits (though actually the personal benefits lead to societal benefits).  Having said that, man made laws and punishments are absolutely essential for the maintenance of social order and stability - irrespective of what any religion says about it. No one would ever say that murder shouldn't be a punishable offense - but you don't see westerners objecting to it just because having a punishment for it is consistent with christian doctrine. Likewise, there are good reasons from a social harmony perspective for punishing adultery and alcohol consumption that are quite separate to it being forbidden by the quran. And in fact many non-islamic societies in the past had prohibitions on these acts.

You never actually conceded that it is a contradiction either. Hence the question. Are there any other verses besides the 'no compulsion in religion' one that contradict enforcement of Shariah law?

Obviously laws are encessary for society to function. I am not sure how the examples you gave are relevant. Do you think banning alcohol contradicts the 'no compulsion in religion' thing?


Quote:

Abu, on the other hand...

Falah was the one who said the Taliban were the last true Islamic government on earth. Abu didn't agree 100% with everything they did. I think they were even more 'conservative' than him. It's good to see people promoting progressive Islam, isn't it?

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2013 at 9:32am:

You never actually conceded that it is a contradiction either. Hence the question.

What do you mean? I conceded the claim that islamic law is enforceable is a contradiction to the specific quranic commands. Whether or not those claims are a correct interpretation of islamic law is the question. I suspect they are not.



Quote:

Are there any other verses besides the 'no compulsion in religion' one that contradict enforcement of Shariah law?

Already cited in reply#42


Quote:

Obviously laws are encessary[sic] for society to function. I am not sure how the examples you gave are relevant. Do you think banning alcohol contradicts the 'no compulsion in religion' thing?

Put it this way. Islamic law is for the benefit of the individual and their personal relationship with God. The quran points out very clearly that adherence to islamic law must come from the heart, and there is absolutely no point forcing people to follow islam - as it would be insincere.

Quite apart from that, society has to abide by a set of man-made laws to ensure the stability and social harmony of society. Inevitably there will be some overlap between what the societies' religion says is forbidden, and what the society deems as damaging to society. But it is the latter alone that is the reason for the law, not the former. To put it in libertarian terms, everyone should be free, unless it adversely affects other people. In islam, religion is completely a freedom of choice thing, unless it harms others. Thus muslims in an islamic society have freedom to choose the way they practice (or don't practice) their religion - until it adversely affects society - eg adultery, alcoholism.

Quote:

Already cited in reply#42

I don't see it. All I see is you asking me to tell you what the contradictions are.

Do you think banning alcohol contradicts the 'no compulsion in religion' thing?

I did notice this though:


Quote:

elections are not predetermined - unless its one that involves Hamid Karzai. All that is 'predetermined' is that the nation will remain islamic. Yet, you say yourself that democracy is 'rule by majority' - so when the majority is muslim, its reasonable to assume that the will of that majority is to keep the islamic nature of the state regardless of the election outcome.

Going by the explanation I have received from every other Muslim, the outcome is predetermined. Using your example of Iran, candidates must first be vetted for appropriate Islamicness. That means a predetermined outcome. That is undemocratic. You cannot get around this by claiming that because the majority is Muslim the outcome would have been the same, or it is appropriate to restrict the outcomes from the beginning. To give a demonstration, this is no different to Abu claiming that because people like you are Muslims it is entirely appropriate to impose the death penalty for apostasy on you, on the grounds that any opposition from you is merely an incorrect interpretation of Islam.

There is no need to edit quotes with 'sic'. I hope you are not retyping them.

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2013 at 11:09am:

I don't see it. All I see is you asking me to tell you what the contradictions are.

lol, ok FD, here you go - the unseen quranic quotes in post#42:

Quote:

Quote: “Therefore, do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish. Thou art not one to manage (people’s) affairs.” (Al-Gashiya, 88/21-22).“If then they turn away, We have not sent thee as a guard over them. Thy duty is but to convey (The Message).” (Al-Shura, 42/48). Quote: “Verily We have revealed the Book to thee in Truth, for (instructing) mankind. He, then, that receives guidance benefits his own soul: But he that strays injures his own soul. Nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs.” (Al-Zumar, 39/41). Quote: “The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message)” (Al-Nur, 24/54). “Say: “O ye men! Now Truth hath reached you from your Lord! Those who receive guidance, do so for the good of their own souls; those who stray, do so to their own loss; And I am not (set) over you to arrange your affairs.” (Yunus, 10/108). http://www.lastprophet.info/freedom-of-faith-in-the-practice-of-prophet-muhammad

Quote:

Do you think banning alcohol contradicts the 'no compulsion in religion' thing?

can you please for one minute read and comprehend what I say - and what I've been saying over and over many times?

Alcohol fits into that category of behaviour that harms other innocent people besides the offender, and therefore harms society. Therefore any man-made prohibition on alcohol should be motivated by the desire to preserve the cohesion and harmony in society. Is it a coincidence that the only sharia laws that have a man-made punishment in some islamic societies are those that have a direct adverse impact on society? No. Thats why no muslim society punishes people for not praying or performing the hajj. 



Quote:

Going by the explanation I have received from every other Muslim, the outcome is predetermined. Using your example of Iran, candidates must first be vetted for appropriate Islamicness. That means a predetermined outcome. That is undemocratic. You cannot get around this by claiming that because the majority is Muslim the outcome would have been the same, or it is appropriate to restrict the outcomes from the beginning.

Ah, but you see you make a completely flawed assumption here.

No candidate is "vetted" before they stand in the model I'm talking about. If you have an islamic society from which say 3 candidates stand for a run-off election to be their leader. Candidate A and B are islamists, and candidate C is anti-islamist. In the run-off election, candidate C is eliminated because most members of society are islamists who have no wish to vote for an anti-islamist candidate. The election proper, is then a choice between two islamists. All entirely democratic, and nothing is pre-determined.

Also Iran is not a model of islamic democracy.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

freediver wrote on Jan 20th, 2013 at 11:09am: I don't see it. All I see is you asking me to tell you what the contradictions are. lol, ok FD, here you go - the unseen quranic quotes in post#42: Quote: Quote: “Therefore, do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish. Thou art not one to manage (people’s) affairs.” (Al-Gashiya, 88/21-22).“If then they turn away, We have not sent thee as a guard over them. Thy duty is but to convey (The Message).” (Al-Shura, 42/48). Quote: “Verily We have revealed the Book to thee in Truth, for (instructing) mankind. He, then, that receives guidance benefits his own soul: But he that strays injures his own soul. Nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs.” (Al-Zumar, 39/41). Quote: “The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message)” (Al-Nur, 24/54). “Say: “O ye men! Now Truth hath reached you from your Lord! Those who receive guidance, do so for the good of their own souls; those who stray, do so to their own loss; And I am not (set) over you to arrange your affairs.” (Yunus, 10/108). http://www.lastprophet.info/freedom-of-faith-in-the-practice-of-prophet-muhammad [quote]Do you think banning alcohol contradicts the 'no compulsion in religion' thing?

can you please for one minute read and comprehend what I say - and what I've been saying over and over many times?

Alcohol fits into that category of behaviour that harms other innocent people besides the offender, and therefore harms society. Therefore any man-made prohibition on alcohol should be motivated by the desire to preserve the cohesion and harmony in society. Is it a coincidence that the only sharia laws that have a man-made punishment in some islamic societies are those that have a direct adverse impact on society? No. Thats why no muslim society punishes people for not praying or performing the hajj. 



Quote:

Going by the explanation I have received from every other Muslim, the outcome is predetermined. Using your example of Iran, candidates must first be vetted for appropriate Islamicness. That means a predetermined outcome. That is undemocratic. You cannot get around this by claiming that because the majority is Muslim the outcome would have been the same, or it is appropriate to restrict the outcomes from the beginning.

Ah, but you see you make a completely flawed assumption here.

No candidate is "vetted" before they stand in the model I'm talking about. If you have an islamic society from which say 3 candidates stand for a run-off election to be their leader. Candidate A and B are islamists, and candidate C is anti-islamist. In the run-off election, candidate C is eliminated because most members of society are islamists who have no wish to vote for an anti-islamist candidate. The election proper, is then a choice between two islamists. All entirely democratic, and nothing is pre-determined.

Also Iran is not a model of islamic democracy.

[/quote]



gandalf,

Your arguments [above] are riddled with error.

You are a moslem, and your arguments [above] are riddled with error and with a denial of what is true.

Thanks Yadda, I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

Meanwhile, please do continue on with our quoting of da'if hadith that have no resemblance to sharia law.  :)

Sorry, I saw Yadda and a bunch of biblical looking quotes and thought you were quoting him. That is very interesting. I will bring it up with Abu and Falah if they ever return. They insist that such constradictions don't exist.


Quote:

Is it a coincidence that the only sharia laws that have a man-made punishment in some islamic societies are those that have a direct adverse impact on society? No.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Did you mean to distinguish man-made punishments from anything else? Is this a reference to modern Islamic societies?


Quote:

No candidate is "vetted" before they stand in the model I'm talking about.

Which is? You said earlier in this thread that there would be 'provisions' to preserve the Islamic nature of the society despite democracy. I couldn't get you to elaborate at the time. Perhaps you should now.


Quote:

If you have an islamic society from which say 3 candidates stand for a run-off election to be their leader. Candidate A and B are islamists, and candidate C is anti-islamist. In the run-off election, candidate C is eliminated because most members of society are islamists who have no wish to vote for an anti-islamist candidate.

Preferential voting. Nice. Does your proposal involve multiple elections?

The example you gave actually risks a failure to compromise situation. Unless the 'vast' majority of the society are Muslims, candidate C is likely to make it into the final round.


Quote:

Also Iran is not a model of islamic democracy.

Does that mean that Ahmadinejad's ruling about how to handle a goat after you have had sex with it has no basis in Islam?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 20^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

Thanks Yadda, I'll be sure to keep that in mind. Meanwhile, please do continue on with our quoting of da'if hadith that have no resemblance to sharia law.  :)

To moslems, in various Sharia jurisdictions, Sharia law is a 'moving feast', in the same way that a moslem, a true moslem, is 'a man for all seasons'.

In the sense of a moslem is, "A flag in the wind.", and, "Which way is the wind blowing today ?"




Quote:

The term 'moving feast' is probably a corruption of the term 'Moveable Feast'. That term refers to the concept of Christian Feast Days or Holy Festivals which do not have a fixed date, but fall on different days of the year according to the workings of complex formulae. Easter is a good example of a moveable feast day because the date is worked out on moon phases which changes the date from year to year. As I understand it (and I am no expert) it is used to describe circumstances or events where the meaning or rules are nebulous or continually changing, like the tax laws, or the rail time tables, or political conventions. 'A Moveable Feast' is also the title of the memoirs of Ernest Hemingway, written in the 1920's concerning his life and loves in Paris. Apparently, the chapters and events do not follow a strict time line and have been edited several times by people who think they know the sequence that Hemingway should have written it. Once again, a nebulous idea with changing rules and sequences. I hope this helps.

Google it





Who is the God of creation ?


Psalms 5:1
Give ear to my words, O LORD, consider my meditation.
2  Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray.
3  My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O LORD; in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up.
4  For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
5  The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
6  Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

'leasing' above, refers to deceit.



Hell, is able to, and will, accommodate all of you deceivers.

Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2013 at 12:40pm:

Did you mean to distinguish man-made punishments from anything else? Is this a reference to modern Islamic societies?

Of course I'm distinguishing between man-made punishments and islamic prescriptions. Again, some acts are punishable in an islamic society because of the negative effects it has on society - not simply because islamic law prohibits them. Once again, islamic law is primarily interested in personal duties between the individual and God.

And yes, I am referring to current islamic regimes - as well as past regimes. Whether or not you consider these regimes trully "islamic", the fact is there has never (to my knowledge) been any serious efforts by any islamists to introduce compulsion into day-to-day islamic living - apart from the specific acts mentioned already that have a direct negative impact on society.


freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2013 at 12:40pm:

You said earlier in this thread that there would be 'provisions' to preserve the Islamic nature of the society despite democracy. I couldn't get you to elaborate at the time. Perhaps you should now.

Well you never actually asked me to elaborate, but this system is obviously a work in progress. If we're talking about a constitutional republic (as I originally was), then the protections I alluded to would be provided here. Does it mean candidates are necessarily "vetted" to comply to the constitution thus making it undemocratic? Not necessarily. Most democratic constitutional republics have democratic ways to change the constitution. My central point stands though - that an islamic system remains islamic as long as the voice of the people wills it - and this is likely to remain the case as long as the population remains predominantly muslim. Of course there are exceptions - such as Turkey - but even here the secular reforms came about when Turkey was not yet a democracy.


freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2013 at 12:40pm:

Preferential voting. Nice. Does your proposal involve multiple elections?

You've never heard of presidential run-offs? Its about the most common system of presidential voting from France to Indonesia - even the US system of primaries is the same sort of thing. Yes, of course it means multiple elections - unless one candidate gets enough of a mandate in the first round, but usually they don't.

Quote:

You've never heard of presidential run-offs? Its about the most common system of presidential voting from France to Indonesia - even the US system of primaries is the same sort of thing. Yes, of course it means multiple elections - unless one candidate gets enough of a mandate in the first round, but usually they don't.

Would you be in favour of a system where these runoffs could be conducted instantaneously rather than requiring people to return to the polls?


Quote:

Of course I'm distinguishing between man-made punishments and islamic prescriptions. Again, some acts are punishable in an islamic society because of the negative effects it has on society - not simply because islamic law prohibits them. Once again, islamic law is primarily interested in personal duties between the individual and God.

Which category would the death penalty for apostasy fall under - man made or Islamic prescription?


Quote:

Well you never actually asked me to elaborate, but this system is obviously a work in progress.

By you, or is this some kind of group?


Quote:

If we're talking about a constitutional republic (as I originally was), then the protections I alluded to would be provided here. Does it mean candidates are necessarily "vetted" to comply to the constitution thus making it undemocratic? Not necessarily. Most democratic constitutional republics have democratic ways to change the constitution. My central point stands though - that an islamic system remains islamic as long as the voice of the people wills it - and this is likely to remain the case as long as the population remains predominantly muslim.

Are you now saying that there would be no 'extra-democratic' provisions for the society to remain Islamic? Is this work in progress nothing more than reinventing democracy?

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2013 at 4:56pm:

Would you be in favour of a system where these runoffs could be conducted instantaneously rather than requiring people to return to the polls?

umm... I guess...  :-? - does it make a difference?


freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2013 at 4:56pm:

Which category would the death penalty for apostasy fall under - man made or Islamic prescription?

I question the claim that islam prescribes death for apostasy. I argued that point in about the first thread I participated in on this board. I believe the confusion arises from a specific practice during the prophet's time where enemies of islam would infiltrate the muslim camp, pretend to convert, and then use their position as trusted brothers to sow discord and weaken the islamic nation. Thus the prescription was more about punishing traitors and saboteurs - of which death is standard punishment for most places - islamic or not.

In this context, the act in question is a de-facto act of war - as any nation on earth would treat it as. It therefore doesn't really come under the regular day-to-day laws that govern an islamic nation, but how to respond to an attack by a foreign aggressor. I think its pretty standard fair to execute spies and sabateurs and traitors.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 21^st, 2013 at 11:59am:

freediver wrote on Jan 20th, 2013 at 4:56pm: Would you be in favour of a system where these runoffs could be conducted instantaneously rather than requiring people to return to the polls? umm... I guess...  :-? - does it make a difference? freediver wrote on Jan 20th, 2013 at 4:56pm: Which category would the death penalty for apostasy fall under - man made or Islamic prescription? I question the claim that islam prescribes death for apostasy. I argued that point in about the first thread I participated in on this board. I believe the confusion arises from a specific practice during the prophet's time where enemies of islam would infiltrate the muslim camp, pretend to convert, and then use their position as trusted brothers to sow discord and weaken the islamic nation. Thus the prescription was more about punishing traitors and saboteurs - of which death is standard punishment for most places - islamic or not. In this context, the act in question is a de-facto act of war - as any nation on earth would treat it as. It therefore doesn't really come under the regular day-to-day laws that govern an islamic nation, but how to respond to an attack by a foreign aggressor. I think its pretty standard fair to execute spies and sabateurs and traitors.

What you are confirming, is that ISLAM is a nation, rather than ISLAM being exclusively a religion.




And moslems are bringing their nation, into every country they enter.

And with that, moslems are actively seeking to supplant the laws of every host nation [they enter], with Sharia    [....and, Sharia favours moslems, EXCLUSIVELY].

And thereby, moslems are actively subverting the laws and the institutions of that nation.

Isn't that treason, on the part of moslems - when the total allegiance of moslems, is to the nation of ISLAM ?

Quote:

umm... I guess...  Huh - does it make a difference?

Sure. It means you only need one election, rather than two in the case of the French presidenital runoff - which still suffers some of the same issues because there is only one runoff.

Also, if the runoff election is instantaneous, you end up with the system we already have in Australia. Are you trying to turn Australia into an Islamic nation by redefining Islam to be what we currently have?


Quote:

I question the claim that islam prescribes death for apostasy. I argued that point in about the first thread I participated in on this board. I believe the confusion arises from a specific practice during the prophet's time where enemies of islam would infiltrate the muslim camp, pretend to convert, and then use their position as trusted brothers to sow discord and weaken the islamic nation. Thus the prescription was more about punishing traitors and saboteurs - of which death is standard punishment for most places - islamic or not. In this context, the act in question is a de-facto act of war - as any nation on earth would treat it as. It therefore doesn't really come under the regular day-to-day laws that govern an islamic nation, but how to respond to an attack by a foreign aggressor. I think its pretty standard fair to execute spies and sabateurs and traitors.

So if an Australian immigrant made disparaging remarks about Australia, for example about our role in current wars, Australia would interpret this as an act of war and punish them accordingly?

Yes, FD, but it would have to be a Muslim immigrant - i.e, an enemy.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 8:18am:

Are you trying to turn Australia into an Islamic nation by redefining Islam to be what we currently have?

What? I'm trying to turn Australian into an islamic nation now? When did this discussion ever come up??

Goodness me - the lengths you will go to in your desperate attempt to ridicule me.


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 8:18am:

So if an Australian immigrant made disparaging remarks about Australia, for example about our role in current wars, Australia would interpret this as an act of war and punish them accordingly?

no, and neither would islamic law. Next strawman?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 11:13am:

freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 8:18am: Are you trying to turn Australia into an Islamic nation by redefining Islam to be what we currently have? What? I'm trying to turn Australian into an islamic nation now? When did this discussion ever come up?? Goodness me - the lengths you will go to in your desperate attempt to ridicule me.

I was making fun of your attempt to come up with a system of democracy that happens to be identical to the one we already have.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 11:13am:

freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 8:18am: [quote author=freediver link=1354330218/71#71 date=1359584332]So if an Australian immigrant made disparaging remarks about Australia, for example about our role in current wars, Australia would interpret this as an act of war and punish them accordingly? no, and neither would islamic law. Next strawman?

Can you explain what else you meant by sowing discord? Does that mean slaughtering people?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 11:35am:

I was making fun of your attempt to come up with a system of democracy that happens to be identical to the one we already have.

Um ok... and? Why on earth would that be worthy of ridicule? Australia is a thriving democracy, it has a robust system - and its certainly not inherently incompatible with an islamic system. Its a model to be proud of - why the hell shouldn't it be emulated??

And we're talking about the design of a hypothetical islamic regime - not transforming the established and working system Australia already has.


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 11:35am:

Can you explain what else you meant by sowing discord? Does that mean slaughtering people?

An analogy would be an "immigrant" in Australia - who was in fact planted as a spy by a hypothetical foreign enemy, who then goes about maliciously doing and saying things with the specific aim of weakening the nation and deliberately increasing its susceptibility to an attack by his foreign masters.

Like I said, stock standard spying and sabatage - of which execution is pretty much standard across the world - muslim or not.

I don't think anyone would consider 'saying things' to be stock standard sabotage. Abu for example does that sort of thing all the time. This is a pretty absurd way to attempt to dismiss the death penalty for apostasy.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 2:08pm:

I don't think anyone would consider 'saying things' to be stock standard sabotage

I didn't say it was. I also said I don't believe islamic law prescribes death for merely 'saying things'.

Can you elaborate on the 'doing and saying things' bit?

Earlier in the thread you said there would be restrictions on democracy to protect the Islamic nature of society. Can you elaborate on those?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 21^st, 2013 at 11:59am:

I question the claim that islam prescribes death for apostasy.

The Islamic republic of Iran executes apostates as do the Saudis.
The Saudi constitution says Gods book (quran) and the sunnah of his prophet are the Saudi constitution,Islam originated in Saudi Arabia.

Here is an Islamic scholar telling us why apostates are to be executed for the crime of disbelieving after you have believed.
www.islamqa.com/en/ref/20327/apostate
I suggest all converts to Islam should read the fine print on the exit policy with Islam before joining that death cult.



Quote:

I think its pretty standard fair to execute spies and sabateurs and traitors.

So what about Hanoi Jane Fonda why is she still alive?
John walker Lindh was caught fighting with the Taliban why is he still alive?
Who was the last person executed in the USA for spying or treason and how long ago was that?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 12:17pm:

Australia is a thriving democracy, it has a robust system - and its certainly not inherently incompatible with an islamic system. Like I said, stock standard spying and sabatage - of which execution is pretty much standard across the world - muslim or not.

Islam is not compatible with the Universal declaration of human rights so there is no way an Islamic system can be compatible with democracy in Australia, our constitution forbids your religious laws.

The Islamic countries have not signed the Universal declaration of human rights because it violates Islamic law,who would have thought human rights violates Islamic laws.
The muslims have the Cairo declaration where sharia law trumps human rights.

Why are Hanoi Jane Fonda and JW Lindh still alive if we execute spies as you incorrectly claim?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 2:46pm:

Can you elaborate on the 'doing and saying things' bit?

*yawn* getting tired of this...

use your imagination for God's sake. Everyone knows what a traitor is during war time. Someone who spys and does traitorous things for the specific purpose of helping their nation's enemies.


Quote:

Earlier in the thread you said there would be restrictions on democracy to protect the Islamic nature of society. Can you elaborate on those?

not really. I'm not an expert at creating governments and nations. I don't really know how these things are done. Suffice to say I think it stands to reason that a self-described islamic nation would want to institute certain measures to protect the islamic character of the nation.


Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 3:03pm:

The Islamic republic of Iran executes apostates as do the Saudis. The Saudi constitution says Gods book (quran) and the sunnah of his prophet are the Saudi constitution,Islam originated in Saudi Arabia.

Good for them. The Saudis though are run by crazy salafists who are pretty much universally despised throughout the muslim world.


Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 3:03pm:

Here is an Islamic scholar... blah blah blah

Wow thats great, fascinating, I'm totally convinced  ::)

Quote:

use your imagination for God's sake

I did. You said I was wrong. So how about you give us the correct interpretation of your vague waffle?


Quote:

Everyone knows what a traitor is during war time.

Yes, and it is nothing like what you are describing in order to equate treason and apostasy. Abu tried the exact same BS, but eventually admitted that apostasy alone is treason and punishable by death.


Quote:

not really. I'm not an expert at creating governments and nations.

Do you really need to be an expert to explain how Islamic law might restrict genuine democracy? I am not asking you to write the constitution.


Quote:

Suffice to say I think it stands to reason that a self-described islamic nation would want to institute certain measures to protect the islamic character of the nation.

In what way does that suffice? It could mean anything, including a dictatorship that labels itself democracy.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 3:19pm:

Baronvonrort wrote Today at 3:03pm: Here is an Islamic scholar... blah blah blah Wow thats great, fascinating, I'm totally convinced  Roll Eyes

Didn't you spend about 8 pages in another thread complaining that I failed to seek the opinion of 'Islamic scholars'? Was I right to ignore your demands as being nothing more than the typical Muslim exercise of shifting the goal posts as rapidly as possible?

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 3:41pm:

Yes, and it is nothing like what you are describing in order to equate treason and apostasy. Abu tried the exact same BS, but eventually admitted that apostasy alone is treason and punishable by death

righto then - so imagine WWII, the nazis send a spy into Britain to spread rumours and lies to cause panic and confusion to weaken the resolve of the British people, and help Germany gain military dominance over Britain. No doubt though if the British caught him and uncovered his operation they would just laugh it off and say "oh he has a right to say stuff"  ::)

This scenario is pretty much identical to what the "apostates" that were executed by the prophet were doing.


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 3:41pm:

Do you really need to be an expert to explain how Islamic law might restrict genuine democracy?

yup


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 3:41pm:

I am not asking you to write the constitution.

yeah, you are effectively.


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 3:41pm:

Didn't you spend about 8 pages in another thread complaining that I failed to seek the opinion of 'Islamic scholars'?

No, I spent about 8 pages pointing out the pure absurdity of your practice of making hard, authoritative claims on islamic jurisprudence, and then using conversations between you and Abu, or often you and another islamophobe, as sources for those claims.

Yes it is true, Baron is streets ahead of you in knowing how to source properly - but thats not saying much. While he is on the right track, he doesn't go nearly far enough. See Baron is what we call a bigot. He has made up his mind about islam even before he knows anything about it. He hates islam and he hates muslims, and nothing is going to sway him from that view. So he then goes in search of "authoritative" sources that support his pre-conceived notions about islam. He will purposefully sift through all the sources that give the opposite view of what he is looking for in order to find the "right" sources. Take the quote he gave for example - it would have been literally impossible for him to find that source on google without ignoring the many hits that give the opposite view. So if (for example) he typed in "islam apostasy" in google, the very first result would have been a wikipedia article, which would provide him with this slightly inconvenient piece of information:


Quote:

Islamic scholarship differs on its punishment, ranging from execution – based on an interpretation of certain hadiths – to no punishment at all as long as they "do not work against the Muslim society or nation."

On the democracy issue, this is how other Muslims have explained it: you can have democracy, but only upstanding Muslims who practice the correct version of Islam (as determined by whatever faction kills the most people) get to vote. Only upstanding Muslims who practice the correct version of Islam. The only platform they may run on is the correct version of Islam. So basically the outcome is predetermined.


Quote:

righto then - so imagine WWII, the nazis send a spy into Britain to spread rumours and lies to cause panic and confusion to weaken the resolve of the British people, and help Germany gain military dominance over Britain.

What kind of absurd fantasy is that?

1) This is pretty much exactly what Abu and Falah are doing right now. We are at war with Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and they are doing everything they can to spread propaganda for the enemy. We don't kill them.

2) As for actual spies, you seem to have no idea what they really do. I doubt they even did this in Muhammed's time. It was just a convenient excuse to avoid the reality that some people came to their senses and rejected Islam. It's a bit like George Bush saying you are either with us or against us, except in Muhammed's case it was you are either with us or you are dead.


Quote:

See Baron is what we call a bigot. He has made up his mind about islam even before he knows anything about it. He hates islam and he hates muslims, and nothing is going to sway him from that view.

Perhaps because it is perfectly justifiable.


Quote:

So he then goes in search of "authoritative" sources that support his pre-conceived notions about islam.

I wouldn't exactly call it a search. Muslims themselves throw this rubbish in our faces all the time. They even marched through Sydney behind placards calling for the death of someone who made a silly internet video, just in case we were confused about what they think.

Islamic scholarship differs on its punishment, ranging from execution – based on an interpretation of certain hadiths – to no punishment at all as long as they "do not work against the Muslim society or nation."

In other words, you can get away with apostasy so long as you don't tell anyone about it. And that is the most 'liberal' interpretation it gives. This is hardly backing up your position.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 7:48pm:

This is pretty much exactly what Abu and Falah are doing right now. We are at war with Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and they are doing everything they can to spread propaganda for the enemy. We don't kill them.

Abu and Falah are preparing for an invasion of Australia by the mighty Afghan forces are they? Interesting.

If, as you claim, they are directly involved in facilitating terrorist attacks against Australian citizens, then I suggest you notify ASIO, and they should be locked up. And I dare say a substantial number of Australians would support sentencing them to death.


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 7:48pm:

As for actual spies, you seem to have no idea what they really do. I doubt they even did this in Muhammed's time.

I suggest you look up Operation Greif. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

If you're still confused about my point about the need to distinguish between preserving religious freedom and protecting society, I recommend this article:


Quote:

Freedom of faith is essential to Islam. Prophets and Messengers of Allah along with their communities had to struggle for their freedom of faith. That Islam is by choice is unambiguously stated in the Qur'an and reflected in the Prophetic legacy. However, throughout history, the issue has been clouded due to mixing the issue of apostasy with treason.

The article also quotes a number of relevant hadith:


Quote:

According to al-Nakha'i, apostate should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to death. [He] maintained the view that the invitation should continue for as long as there is hope that the apostate might change his mind and repent.

Quote:

Renunciation of the faith and conversion to disbelief is admittedly the greatest of offenses, yet it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the day of judgment

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 3:12pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31st, 2013 at 12:17pm: Australia is a thriving democracy, it has a robust system - and its certainly not inherently incompatible with an islamic system. Like I said, stock standard spying and sabatage - of which execution is pretty much standard across the world - muslim or not. Islam is not compatible with the Universal declaration of human rights so there is no way an Islamic system can be compatible with democracy in Australia, our constitution forbids your religious laws. The Islamic countries have not signed the Universal declaration of human rights because it violates Islamic law,who would have thought human rights violates Islamic laws.

No Muslim countries signed the UN Bill of Human Rights? Is that your final answer?

Quote:

I suggest you look up Operation Greif. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

That was soldiers shooting people and blowing things up. Hardly the same thing as 'spreading rumours and lies.' It is ludicrous to attempt to link the death penalty for apostasy with Muhammed's enemies infiltrating his empire so that they could say demoralising things to people. It does not even make sense. What good is a 'spy' who deliberately draws attention to himself this way?


Quote:

However, throughout history, the issue has been clouded due to mixing the issue of apostasy with treason.

Yes I have seen many Muslims deliberately cloud the issue by trying to confuse it the way you have. Abu attempted to pass it off as being limited to treason in one thread, then in another explained that anyone who even 'acted gay' should be subject to the death penalty because their actions take them outside of Islam to the point of apostasy.

Karnal wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 9:34pm:

No Muslim countries signed the UN Bill of Human Rights? Is that your final answer?

;D ;D I actually missed this one.

But you should know Karnal, FD will never have a final answer - he will have the last say at all costs - no matter how much he twists himself into knots, no matter how absurd his argument becomes.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 9:55pm:

That was soldiers shooting people and blowing things up.

No Operation Greif also involved the spreading of false rumours - to send the American camp into panic and chaos. Like for example planting the false rumour that Eisenhower was targeted for assassination. Even without the physical sabotage, such an operation would have been met with immediate execution of anyone caught.


freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 9:55pm:

Yes I have seen many Muslims deliberately cloud the issue by trying to confuse it the way you have.

*sigh* - yes, everything muslims do is all very sinister ins't it? I couldn't possibly attempt to explain anything about islam in good faith without you turning it into something malicious on my part.

Obviously I am going to be a bit skeptical when you start parroting the exact same propaganda as Abu about how chopping someone's head off for apostasy is really no different to killing a soldier for infiltrating enemy lines.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 8:39am:

Obviously I am going to be a bit skeptical when you start parroting the exact same propaganda as Abu about how chopping someone's head off for apostasy is really no different to killing a soldier for infiltrating enemy lines.

And you should indeed be skeptical - *IF* indeed I did say that.

Pity for you though that all through this and other discussions I've consistently maintained that I believe apostasy itself is not punishable in islam.

Those people I described earlier who were executed by the prophet were not even apostates - since you have to be a muslim to start with to apostasise. They pretended to be muslims to infilitrate the muslim camp in order to help islam's enemies who were trying to conquer them. They were enemy spies, and were executed as such.

So to be as clear as I can - and desperately trying not to "cloud" the issue - let me put it this way: renouncing islam is *NOT* punishable by death - spying for islam's enemies who are at war with islam is. Is that clear?

Quote:

Pity for you though that all through this and other discussions I've consistently maintained that I believe apostasy itself is not punishable in islam.

You don't even know whether shariah law is part of shariah law. That makes it look kind of silly when you take a stance on the details. Abu made the same claim, but later explained that apostasy itself is treason, and treason is punishable by death.

If an apostate starts promoting atheism, some other religion, or the wrong version of Islam, is that a punishable offence?

Back to the democracy thing and your attempt to develop an Islamic democratic model, you still haven't explained whether you are making it up or basing it on Islamic doctrine. Also, is this a personal thing, or part of some kind of broader progressive movement?

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 9:20am:

You don't even know whether shariah law is part of shariah law.

well that makes no sense.


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 9:20am:

That makes it look kind of silly when you take a stance on the details.

I guess it would if I said "I don't know whether shariah law is part of shariah law". Not sure where you got that idea though.

Also, I wouldn't call one of the most oft cited verses in the quran, and one of the core principles of islamic law (no compulsion) as a mere "detail". I also provided you with an article that cites plenty of hadith that a) states uncategorically that apostasy is not punishable by death and b) argues that other hadith that are claimed to prescribe death for apostasy are in fact only talking about treason.


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 9:20am:

Abu made the same claim, but later explained that apostasy itself is treason, and treason is punishable by death.

Well, as you know, Gandalf said loud and clearly that apostasy itself is not treason, and treason is punishable by death in most societies.


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 9:20am:

If an apostate starts promoting atheism, some other religion, or the wrong version of Islam, is that a punishable offence?

no.


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 9:20am:

Back to the democracy thing and your attempt to develop an Islamic democratic model, you still haven't explained whether you are making it up or basing it on Islamic doctrine.

both.


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 9:20am:

Also, is this a personal thing, or part of some kind of broader progressive movement?

err.. you asked me a question and I tried to answer it.

Here you go gandalf:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

Well thats easy FD, see if you bothered taking note of what I said, you would see that I never actually conceded that enforcement of sharia is necessarily part of islamic law. It is something I am still uncertain on - and in fact its the contradiction with specific quranic verses that leads me to doubt that it is.

Quote:

both

Are you making up parts of it? Which parts are based on Islamic doctrine?

hmmm I see you've given up even pretending to make sense FD.

Is that first quote of mine meant to be somehow relevant to your question? If so, you'll have to explain it to me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 10:54am:

Also, I wouldn't call one of the most oft cited verses in the quran, and one of the core principles of islamic law (no compulsion) as a mere "detail". I also provided you with an article that cites plenty of hadith that a) states uncategorically that apostasy is not punishable by death and b) argues that other hadith that are claimed to prescribe death for apostasy are in fact only talking about treason.

The Quran also says alcohol is ok yet muslims dont drink alcohol because Mo got butthurt when a few muslims turned up for prayers while drunk so he outlawed it.
If there is a verse in the Quran that says alcohol is not allowed does that contradict sura 16/67 which says alcohol is ok?

Quote:

Allah speaking- And from the fruits of the palmtrees and grapevines you take intoxicant and good provision.Indeed that is a sign for people who reason www.quran.com/16/67

What does sura 4/82 say about contradictions-

Quote:

Allah speaking - Then do they not reflect upon the Quran,If it had been from any other than allah they would have found in it much contradiction. www.quran.com/4/82

The fine print in the Quran says alcohol is ok and it is not from allah do you even read your holy books?

Mohammad was the one who ordered apostates to be killed and it had nothing to do with treason-

Quote:

The (false?) prophet said- If somebody ( a muslim) discards his religion,kill him www.sunnah.com/bukhari/56/226

The hadith is pretty clear that apostates are to be killed for the crime of leaving Islam, people should read the fine print on the exit policy in Islam before joining that cult.
Here are more hadith can you read and comprehend these ones gandalf, do they call for death to apostates?
www.sunnah.com/search/changes-religion

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 5:59pm:

Yes it is true, Baron is streets ahead of you in knowing how to source properly - but thats not saying much. While he is on the right track, he doesn't go nearly far enough. See Baron is what we call a bigot. He has made up his mind about islam even before he knows anything about it. He hates islam and he hates muslims, and nothing is going to sway him from that view.

Do the christians/jews/hindu/voodoo religions call their critics bigots-racists-phobic or is that something only muslims do when confronted with the truth about Islam?

Where did a say i hate muslims?
I think muslims are delusional from Islamic brainwashing it has nothing to do with hate.
I stick up for the ahmadi muslims who are persecuted by mainstream Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 5:02pm:

hmmm I see you've given up even pretending to make sense FD. Is that first quote of mine meant to be somehow relevant to your question? If so, you'll have to explain it to me.

No gandalf, the first quote is in response to you asking me to quote you saying that you didn't know whether shariah law is part of shariah law. The second question is about you making up the stuff about democracy as well as getting it from the Koran.

Evil!

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 7:00pm:

No gandalf, the first quote is in response to you asking me to quote you saying that you didn't know whether shariah law is part of shariah law.

no, thats me saying I'm not sure if enforcement of shariah law is part of shariah law. What you say I said makes absolutely no sense.


freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 7:00pm:

The second question is about you making up the stuff about democracy as well as getting it from the Koran.

Well if you just used your brain for two seconds you would see what a stupid question this is. I was originally asked how democracy could work in a hypothetical islamic nation - so any answer I give you is, in your words, going to be "making stuff up" by definition - since its theorizing and hypothesising on my part. But its also drawing on what I understand about islamic law. So if you like its a case of "making stuff up" - based on my understanding of what islamic law says.


Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 6:18pm:

The hadith is pretty clear that apostates are to be killed for the crime of leaving Islam

That hadith seems pretty clear, but what about all the other hadith that are pretty clear giving the opposite view?


Quote:

A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam. Then the bedouin got fever at Medina, came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge," But Allah's Apostle refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused. The bedouin finally went out (of Medina) whereupon Allah's Apostle said, "Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, #318] Notably, as Dr. M. E. Subhani explained in his book: “This was an open case of apostasy. But the Prophet neither punished the Bedouin nor asked anyone to do it. He allowed him to leave Madina. Nobody harmed him.” [Apostasy in Islam (New Delhi, India: Global Media Publications, 2005), pp. 23-24.]

Quote:

According to al-Nakha'i, apostate should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to death. [He] maintained the view that the invitation should continue for as long as there is hope that the apostate might change his mind and repent.

Quote:

Sufyan al-Thawri [d. 161 AH] [known as 'the prince of the believers concerning Hadith' (amir al-mu'minin fi'l-Hadith) and is the author of two important compilations of Hadith, namely al-Jami' al-Kabir, and al-Jami' al- Saghir] According to al-Thawri, apostate should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to death. [He] maintained the view that the invitation should continue for as long as there is hope that the apostate might change his mind and repent.

http://apostasyandislam.blogspot.com.au/


Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 6:18pm:

The Quran also says alcohol is ok

no, prohibition of alcohol is spelled out very clearly in verse 2:219. The 16:67 verse is at best ambiguous. It says that from fruit, man can get either wholesome sustenance or a dangerous intoxicant that will cause them to lose control of their senses. It ends with the rather pointed remark "Surely there is a sign for those who use reason." - as in it should be pretty obvious which is beneficial for those who use reason. Thats pretty much the exact opposite of saying "alcohol is ok"

Quote:

I was originally asked how democracy could work in a hypothetical islamic nation - so any answer I give you is, in your words, going to be "making stuff up" by definition

Actually the original question was far simpler than that. Are you saying that your suggestion is merely one of many that 'could work', or is there something that specifically guided you to it?

As far as I am concerned you can stuff your sharia where the sun don't shine Gandalf!


"God has cursed the Jews, transforming them into apes and swine and those who serve the devil." — Quran 5.60


Wahhabi Sharia: Muslim Sheikh Accuses 5-Year-Old Daughter of ‘Not Being a Virgin’, Rapes Her, Beats Her to Death, Gets Off with $50,000 Fine

February 4, 2013 · by admin · in Muslims WorldWide


Arab translation reveal horrid details of the murder of a child by vicious killer and torturer, TV-celebrity and Arab Sheikh Fayhan al-Ghamdi. His daughter had been beaten, burnt, her back and ribs broken,  finger nails pulled out, her head cracked, and she had been brutally raped “everywhere” by her father both physically and with a cane. The rape was so brutal that her rectum split open and her father then tried to close it up by burning it. In Shariah a husband or father cannot be executed or duly punished for murdering his wife or children.
Sexual assault on children is extremely common in Muslim societies. The numbers are so staggering it would shock even the most notorious criminal. It is quite possible that the child had already been assaulted by a family member or relative, which the father state his small child had evidence of not being a virgin, confirmed by medical reports (his claim).

.

Read more about the permissive doctrine of sex assault on children and infants under Islam here:

•When Imam Ayatollah Khomeini Raped a 4-year old girl خميني هتك ناموس كودك
 


Muslim Sheikh Accuses 5-Year-Old Daughter of ‘Not Being a Virgin’, Beats Her to Death, Gets Off with $50,000 Fine

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On February 3, 2013


There are some who speculate that the location of the biblical city of Sodom was in Saudi Arabia. They may have a case. Saudi Arabia is what happens when you combine absolute evil with ungodly amounts of money.

It’s not just that monsters like Fayhan al-Ghamdi exist in Saudi Arabia. They exist everywhere. But in the heartland of Islam, where Mohammed first began his wave of crimes against women and little girls, they operate with the sanction of the state.

Sheikh Fayhan al-Ghamdi, an Islamic television preacher in Saudi Arabia, beat Lama, his 5-year-old daughter to death during a custodial visit. Saudi police had found the 5-year-old wandering the streets, she was taken to the hospital and placed in intensive care.

The side of her head had been mashed in, her back was broken, she had a skull fracture, bleeding in the head, a broken left hand, bruises all over her body, and burns that apparently came from an iron. One of her fingernails had been pulled out. There were signs that she had been sexually assaulted in various ways that are too horrific to describe, but that are in serial killer territory.

Lama died in the hospital and a trial began.

“The person who committed this heinous crime is the girl’s father, who tells people how to live their lives and encourages them to cultivate the fear of Allah, who used whips and irons on the body of a 5-year-old girl,” her mother said.

Sheikh Fayhan al-Ghamdi told the judge that his daughter had been “behaving strangely” and questioned her virginity. He took her to a medical professional to have her virginity checked.

Sheikh al-Ghamdi had a job with the Saudi Ministry of Education where he was supposed to be working with troubled youth. The court found that under Islamic Hadith from several sources that states that a father cannot be executed for killing a child, that he should not be treated as a murderer.

It was narrated that the Prophet (Mohammed) said, “No father should be killed (executed) for killing his son.” (At-Tirmidhi)

Or alternatively.

Do not kill him that killed his son, but kill the mother to kill her and her son. (Ibn Qudamah)

Apparently that also applies to jail time for torturing your 5-year-old daughter to death. Instead the court sentenced Sheikh Fayhan al-Ghamdi to 4 months in prison and to pay $50,000 in blood money to the mother of his child.

This is what the Islamic justice system and its values are like. This is the Sharia law that the left insists on importing to America and to Europe.



http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/muslim-sheikh-accuses-5-year-old-daughter-of-not-being-a-virgin-beats-her-to-death-gets-off-with-50000-fine/

Call them sick sunni shiites if you like but at every turn they disgust me!

Ayatollah Khomeini as everyone probably knows, was the leader of Iran. Kohmeini was also a very respected poet and scholar on the Koran and on Sharia law, and wrote many books and interpretations on the teachings of Islam. In Iran Khomeini was basically looked on as a form of prophet with deep spiritual knowledge and wisdom.

There are over 200 books by Khomeini translated into English and most of them available on the web.  In Khomeini’s writings he openly approves, according to Sharia, for Muslims to have sex with animals, to force themselves on and rape women and to sexually assault even babies.


Ayatollah Khomeini’s rape of a small 4-year old child

An excerpt from ‘Hal Ataaka Hadeeth ur-Raafidah’ by the late Sheikh Abu Mus’abaz-Zarqaawi (discussed here)


“The author of the book ‘For Allah, Then For History’ [1] mentions to us an event that took place before his very eyes, when al-Khomeini [2] was living in Iraq, and was visiting an Iranian individual by the name of Sayyid Sahib.

He says: ‘Sayyid Sahib was joyous with our visit, and we arrived at his house around the time of Dhuhr. So, he prepared for us a lavish dinner, and called some of his relatives, who came to see us, and the house became crowded in celebration of our presence.

Sayyid Sahib then requested that we spend that night at his home, to which the Imam agreed. When it was night time, we were given our supper, and the guests would take the Imam’s hand and kiss it, and they would ask him questions, with him answering their questions.

When it was time to sleep, the guests had all left, except for the inhabitants of the house. Al-Khomeini laid his eyes on a young girl who, despite being only four or five years of age, was very beautiful.

So, the Imam requested from her father, Sayyid Sahib, that he spend the night with her in order to enjoy her. Her father happily agreed, and Imam al-Khomeini spent the night with the girl in his arms, and we could hear her crying and screaming [through the night].’”

Here is another quote from a fatwa by the late and unlamented Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran.


“A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed.

A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man’s four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl’s sister.”
– Ayatollah Khomeini, Tahrir al-Vasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom, Iran, 1990.


“Establishing the Islamic state world-wide belong to the great goals of the revolution.” — Kohmeini, Resalat, 25 March 1988.

“A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.”  – From Khomeini’s book, Tahrir al-Vasyleh, fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990

“A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. …This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister.” – ”Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrir al-Vasyleh,” Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom, Iran, 1990.

Other forms of sexual abuse inflicted on children by Muslim male family members include fondling of genitals, coercing a child to fondle the abuser’s genitals, masturbation with the child as either participant or observer, oral sex, anal or vaginal penetration by penis, finger or any other object.

Another technique used by Muslim men is called “thighing” (Mufakhathat or Mufakhazat Alzigaa). The child’s legs are pressed together and the abuser inserts his penis between the thighs of the little boy or girl. This practice was approved of by Ayatollah Khomeini who in his Little Green Book (full book in PDF) asserted “It is not illegal for an adult male to ‘thigh’ or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”

Muslims will often argue that kafirs have invented the Mufakhathat claim because they “do not understand Islam”. And being ‘unclean’ they have no ability to grasp the meaning of a ‘great’ book like the Koran. They also argue that it is only a Shia practice. Well, let the Bahrain women’s rights activist Ghada Jamshir, in the last video below, give witness that it happens amongst Arab men everywhere and not only the Shia’s. Islam does not give Muslim men any any moral format, any humanized upbringing.

http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/when-imam-ayatollah-khomeini-raped-a-4-year-old-girl-%D8%AE%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%87%D8%AA%D9%83-%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B3-%D9%83%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%83/

Hi adamant,

I too was disgusted with the rape and murder story from Saudi Arabia.

Also, I agree that Khomenei was a douche.

We seem to agree on everything so far  :)

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 5^th, 2013 at 5:22pm:

Hi adamant, I too was disgusted with the rape and murder story from Saudi Arabia. Also, I agree that Khomenei was a douche. We seem to agree on everything so far  :)

We agree on nothing these two pedophiles practice Islam and were judged under the Sharia law.

One got away with rape of a minor the other with murder.

NO SHRIA ANYWHERE IN THE FREE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

adamant I would argue that they don't practice Islam. Don't be hatin'...

Also, not that I'm defending him but that rape story about Khomenei is complete baloney. No one outside anti-islamic blogs are corroborating that story.

But he was still a douche.

Quote:

adamant I would argue that they don't practice Islam.

LOL, where have I heard that before?