Quote:


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:


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.

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.

Quote:


That sounds like an inherent contradiction to me.

Quote:


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

Quote:


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?

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.

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:

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

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


your point being?

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


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:


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.

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


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:


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:


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.

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

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:


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:

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:

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:


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.