Thread: Muslims against Sharia

Originally Posted by keda

Why slow?

Never mind, of course a post stands as it stands, I was mistaken.

Any chance of a translation into English?

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by keda

Precisely, and not only are you distorting the argument in order to adopt ridicule as your preferred defence, but in doing so you also abandon fairness and common sense, considering the broad scope of this thread and that you were the OP.
...

What are you on about dude?
Slowly, in English, please.

Why slow? Read at your own pace, my post is not going anywhere.

Originally Posted by keda

Correct me if wrong but while AQ does have a bearing on the subject, it is just one small part of a radical Islam that existed long before the conception of ObL, AQ and the Taliban. It is not AQ that the would-be Islamic 'reformers' need to fear or dare one suggest debate with, with a view to persuading them of the need for reform, but the very fabric of Islam that has been hijacked by its powerful and unforgiving institutions, which I'm sure I do not need to mention but will, survive and grow ever more powerful in line with increasingly radical rhetoric and actions.

I do not share your pessimistic views, concerning the last bit.

Very well then, we can agree to disagree, so how about we delete that last bit - but in that case you still have the rest of the points in my post to respond to...much easier to ignore them, and try to turn it around by scoffing, right?

Can you accept the concept that there are pros and cons for any idea? Got naught to do with "snuggle up" ()...

Sure there are two or more sides to each argument, but I challenged you for being at fault not because of our differing opinions, which I'm well used to by now, but because you abandoned common sense and all pretense at fairness by resorting to intellectual fraud in attempting to devalue and divert attention away from valid points made during the earlier part of this thread. Why? - I repeat, because they did not snuggle up to your preferred reasoning. If that is wrong, how about you clarify why you arrogantly brushed aside remarks that are not just relevant but at the very heart of the thread that you started.

The OP is Muslim's against Sharia.

Do you not believe it?

If so, why.

Originally Posted by keda

Why slow? Read at your own pace, my post is not going anywhere.

It doesn't make any more sense over time.

Originally Posted by keda

Very well then, we can agree to disagree, so how about we delete that last bit - but in that case you still have the rest of the points in my post to respond to...much easier to ignore them, and try to turn it around by scoffing, right?

Delete? Why?
Anything apart from personal attacks here, keda?

Originally Posted by keda

but because you abandoned common sense and all pretense at fairness by resorting to intellectual fraud in attempting to devalue and divert attention away from valid points made during the earlier part of this thread.

"Abandoned common sense", "intellectual fraud"??? How so, keda? Do we have to take your word for it, or is there some explanation forthcoming, at your own pace, of course?

Or are you just disrupting this topic, because it doesn't suit your prejudices?
Is it not possible that Muslims are against Sharia, and maybe they are not the exception, or are they? Any hard data, keda, about those "peacelovers" you admire so much?

Originally Posted by sabang

The OP is Muslim's against Sharia.

Do you not believe it?

If so, why.

Nothing to disbelieve, as you say the OP title is indeed Muslim's against Sharia, so nothing to disbelieve there, and we can also happily agree that the link does in fact lead to a site proposing a less radical Islam....In that case we can all agree on everything and end the thread on the OP.

But if you bothered to read all of the OP, not just the title, it opens the door and would you believe even invites discussion on the 'reformation' (not my term) of Islam, and part of that discussion must necessarily include thoughts on whether such a 'reformation' as experienced by Ztianity could also become an Islamic reality, and if not then why not.

Have I missed something? If not, then you certainly have by coming up with such a precocious query.

Originally Posted by stroller

...

Originally Posted by keda

but because you abandoned common sense and all pretense at fairness by resorting to intellectual fraud in attempting to devalue and divert attention away from valid points made during the earlier part of this thread.

"Abandoned common sense", "intellectual fraud"??? How so, keda? Do we have to take your word for it, or is there some explanation forthcoming, at your own pace, of course?

Or are you just disrupting this topic, because it doesn't suit your prejudices?
Is it not possible that Muslims are against Sharia, and maybe they are not the exception, or are they? Any hard data, keda, about those "peacelovers" you admire so much?

You've totally ignored the points I made earlier, and continue to avoid addressing them with a wide eyed innocence.

Go on, restate your right to scoff because arguments against reformation must be invalid since radical Islam and AQ are one and the same, rather than one being just a tiny part of the greater other. Or tell it in your own words how AQ AND RADICAL ISLAM are irrelevant to the discussion since they have no bearing on a proposed reformation.

You're a fraud.

Originally Posted by keda

Go on, restate your right to scoff because arguments against reformation must be invalid since radical Islam and AQ are one and the same, rather than one being just a tiny part of the greater other. Or tell it in your own words how AQ AND RADICAL ISLAM are irrelevant to the discussion since they have no bearing on a proposed reformation.

Your rant does not bear any relation to anything I have said.

Very disappointing.

Originally Posted by keda

You're a fraud.

I wish you had it in you to make an argument instead of disparaging who you disagree with.

Bump:

Originally Posted by stroller

So, what do you make of all the "main-stream brothers" who live in countries with a secular constitution and follow the non-Sharia laws of these nations?
Looks like there is already a compromise in place for the majority of Muslims. The organisation linked to in the OP is radical itself, which is to be expected from activism, but I would not dismiss the aims as unattainable outright.

Further, one of the differences between Sunni and Shiite is that the former tend to prefer secular governments, with a jurisdiction referring to Sharia in different degrees.
Let's not forget that 'our' Western legal system and jurisdiction has been heavily influenced by Christian values, I would expect any Muslim majority country to be influenced by Islam, but there is plenty of room - maybe I am wrong, but this is my opinion, and any reform movement like the one in the OP has my support.

^ Influenced maybe, but not forced. Let's not forget that tidbit.......

^
That depends on how far back in history and stage of development you are prepared to look.

There was no forced Christianity in the United States..........

But the Christian heritage and resulting legal system is 'forced' on everybody there, no?

Originally Posted by stroller

But the Christian heritage and resulting legal system is 'forced' on everybody there, no?

Yes, there certainly is a "Christian heritage" that most subscribe to, but the legal system is far from Christian based. In fact, it is based in English Common law, and has evolved as the most complex common law nation on earth. The few times Christianity may come into play is in decisions like the right to abortions, which may likely be influenced by a Supreme Justice's religious background. However, they cannot use that as a basis for the decision, they would have to find other legal grounds. Anyway, we still have Roe v. Wade today.

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Just to let you know in advance I'll probably acquire another red for this post so any compensating greens would be greatly appreciated..

sucker...

Yeah.... I have been known to be a sucker.. My weakness (if you can call it that) is compassion and respect for other people whenever possible.. Though I have some negative rep to send you Stroller,, I have more class than you do so I'll keep it to myself. You have a far greater need to be vindictive and get far more enjoyment out of stalking and berating people than I do..

Since it's obvious that you can't live without the negativity, like a vampire, just go ahead and feed away..

I'd much rather give out positive karma and get the same back...

Anything to comment on topic?

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Just to let you know in advance I'll probably acquire another red for this post so any compensating greens would be greatly appreciated..

sucker...

You were saying???? I did post on topic but it wasn't to your liking so now I'm just enjoying being a cheerleader rooting on the other smart ones tear you a new one.. Or is that not allowed either?? Have another complaint??

Originally Posted by stroller

Anything to comment on topic?

Apparently not.

Related material:
Imam Yahya Hendi on terrorism and fatwas:

Islamic Law has consistently condemned terrorism.

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) July 25, 2005

The Fiqh, Jurisprudence, Council of North America (FCNA) wishes to address the issue of terrorism and how it is viewed in the Islamic legal and ethical system:
Islamic law has consistently condemned terrorism and extremism in all forms and under all circumstances, and we reiterate this unequivocal position. Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives.

There is no justification in Islamic Law and ethics for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians’ lives and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram - prohibited in Islam - and those who commit these acts are violators of the teachings of Islam and Shari’ah law, and therefore, are not seen as “martyrs”.
The Qur’an, Islam’s Holy Scripture, states: "Whoever kills a person unjustly, it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind." (Qur’an, 5:32) Recent killings are not justified and not condoned either by FCNA or Islam. Attacks on civilians are not condoned by Islamic law and are seen as Haram.
Prophet Muhammad said there is no excuse for committing unjust acts: "Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to doing good when people do good and neither to wrong others nor to do wrong to those who do you evil." (Hadith Al-Tirmidhi).
...

Ýmam Yahya Hendi

Hopeful news to see them taking a definitive public stance. Though it has been that way for some time it will be interesting to see if it makes any real difference in other more radical Muslims perceptions and changes some minds..

I'm not sure where to put this article, so I'll put it here.

I've read and heard that Muslims don't like dogs (among other animals), but I think this story below is just another reason why this cult is disturbing.

Iranian Man Sentenced to 4 Months in Jail, 30 Lashes for Walking Dog

A 70-year-old Iranian man was arrested and sentenced to four months in jail and 30 lashes for walking his dog, Adnkronos.com reported Tuesday. Police caught the man on the street with his dog in Shahr Rey, a suburb of Tehran.


Owners of domestic animals are forbidden from taking them on the streets of the city because Islam considers dogs to be impure. An Islamic judge later charged the man for "disturbing the public order,” Adnkronos.com reported.

Link: FOXNews.com - Iranian Man Sentenced to 4 Months in Jail, 30 Lashes for Walking Dog - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

Originally Posted by Milkman

I'm not sure where to put this article, so I'll put it here.

Why?
Does it have any relation to the topic at all?

^ ^ ^
stroller it does, because the anti - dog thing is a big thing in sharia law.
i know because i live in britanistan.