The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Sir Burr

Any moslem that is "against" Sharia law is argueably guilty of apostasy (to other moslems) and the penalty for that is death.

I'm afraid that moslems that want to reform their religion so that it fits with the times are a very small minority. Don't think they will make many converts from their more main-stream brothers, either.

__________________
Phuket - Veni Vidi Veni

keda

On the contrary, the thread title, which you wrote, remarks on Islam vs Islamic Law, and the OP starts by comparing the Xtian 'reformation' against what your link offers or questions as the potential beginnings of an Islamic 'reformation'.

There is nothing remarkable about an OP naturally leading to different relevant angles on the same topic, especially one as broad as this.

Norton

I agree in general but there is still the issue of interpretation and practice. The Taliban interpretation is a far cry from that practiced in Malaysia and Indonesia for example. Saudi Arabia is far more severe than the much maligned evil ones in Iran also.

keda

I beg to differ. Unless your OP lays out clear guidelines on relevance and what may or may not be discussed, which defeats the object of discussion, you surely must expect the thread to naturally progress through several angles.

There have been many excellent, very relevant questions and arguments in this short thread against the likelihood of an Islamic 'reformation', though some respondents appear instinctively to devalue these by pointing away, mostly to Xtianity and or the long past. Fact is, if AQ and radical Islam do NOT have a powerful bearing on the subject matter, then the reformation becomes a formality and in fact one might be forgiven for believing there is no need for an Islamic reformation.

No need to rescue the hostages if the plane hasn't been hijacked, is there?

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.

Yes, you are right, I was just concerned about keeping focus.

stroller

There are pro and con arguments, you know? Christianity is relevant in that some insist Islam is intrinsically different in promoting a theocracy - not everyone agrees.
But we don't need to unroll the accounts of cruelty in the crusades, and beheadings and which verse justifies "mentally disabled women" to blow things up in Iraq are equally beyond the scope of this topic.

Ok, that's your opinion on the subject. Fire away on how AQ is preventing a reformation or made it necessary in the first place.

Driventowin

Excellent points!! Well stated!! Though I'm sure Stoller will find a petty little way to twist it out of context and claim it isn't relevent to this topic..

__________________
Silent but deadly.....

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.

It is intellectual dishonesty to base your response to valid contributions skeptical of the forlorn ideal of much needed Islamic reform by a tiny minority prepared among other serious obstacles to risk apostasy for themselves and possibly near ones, by assuming the skeptic opinions are banked on the existence of AQ, simply because AQ was mentioned.

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.

You started this thread, and if you find yourself at odds with fair and relevant and very much on topic points made during the course of the discussion, much better for all if you resist the temptation to simply brush aside whatever does not snuggle up to your preferred reasoning.

Driventowin

I can't green you again, out of ammo...I hope this will do!!! Oooopss!! Sorry got a little too over enthusiastic....

stroller

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

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

Now this does not need a translation.
Can you accept the concept that there are pros and cons for any idea? Got naught to do with "snuggle up" ().
Can you respond to my arguments without hyperbole or personal, attacks?
Please do.

stroller

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

Any chance of a translation into English?

keda

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

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?

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.

sabang

The OP is Muslim's against Sharia.

Do you not believe it?

If so, why.

stroller

It doesn't make any more sense over time.

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

"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?

keda

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.

keda

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.