Creeping Sharia - It's not just a bumper sticker

[Kalam]

Can we get someone in here to clean up this giant pile of excrement that someone left in the middle of the thread?

Kalam, I'm shocked! Is that any way for a good slave to talk? By the way, why are you a slave, Kalam? That's something I'd like to understand better, and you seem reticent to talk about it. Aren't you proud to be a good slave?

what the hell are you talking about?

He and Mr. Fitnah appear to suffer from the same mental disability. I never thought that I'd see a more serious case than Mr. Fitnah, but then this tool came along...

 

[Hister]

Kalam, I'm shocked! Is that any way for a good slave to talk? By the way, why are you a slave, Kalam? That's something I'd like to understand better, and you seem reticent to talk about it. Aren't you proud to be a good slave?

what the hell are you talking about?

He and Mr. Fitnah appear to suffer from the same mental disability. I never thought that I'd see a more serious case than Mr. Fitnah, but then this tool came along...

HEY! You forgot my mental disability!!

Btw, do ANY mooslums use deodorant?

 

[Rezonator]

Can we get someone in here to clean up this giant pile of excrement that someone left in the middle of the thread?

Kalam, I'm shocked! Is that any way for a good slave to talk? By the way, why are you a slave, Kalam? That's something I'd like to understand better, and you seem reticent to talk about it. Aren't you proud to be a good slave?

what the hell are you talking about?

Sharia. It is the law of slavery, in which some slaves are "more equal" than other slaves:

"You have indeed in the Messenger of God (Muhammad) a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is God and the Final Day." —Quran 33:21

Hadith, Sahih Bukhari

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 622: Narrated Anas:
"I am Allah's Slave and His Apostle." —Muhammad

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 360: Narrated Al-Mughira:
"Shouldn't I be a thankful slave (of Allah)?" —Muhammad

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 361: Narrated Aisha:
"Shouldn't I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?" —Muhammad

Volume 1, Book 12, Number 794: Narrated Shaqlq bin Salama:
"I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and I also testify that Muhammad is His slave and His Apostle." —Muhammad

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 297: Narrated Abu Huraira:
"I testify that I am Allah's Slave and His Apostle." —Muhammad

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 568: Narrated Ibn Abbas:
[To Allah] "They are Your slaves And if You forgive them, Verily you, only You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." —Muhammad

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 108: Narrated Mu'adh:
"Allah's right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him. And slave's right on Allah is that He should not punish him who worships none besides Him." —Muhammad

Volume 1, Book 12, Number 794: Narrated Shaqlq bin Salama:
"Peace be on us and on the true pious slaves of Allah." —Muhammad

Volume 1, Book 12, Number 807: Narrated Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani:
"Allah has said, 'In this morning some of my slaves remained as true believers and some became non-believers.'" —Muhammad

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 595: Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah said, 'If My slave loves the meeting with Me, I too love the meeting with him; and if he dislikes the meeting with Me, I too dislike the meeting with him.'" —Muhammad

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 596: Narrated Abu Huraira:
"Allah said, 'I am to my slave as he thinks of Me.'" —Muhammad

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 373: Narrated Abu Huraira:
"Allah said to Paradise, 'You are My Mercy which I bestow on whoever I wish of my servants.' Then Allah said to the (Hell) Fire, 'You are my (means of) punishment by which I punish whoever I wish of my slaves.'" —Muhammad

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 467: Narrated Abu Huraira:
"Allah said, 'I have prepared for My Pious slaves things which have never been seen by an eye, or heard by an ear, or imagined by a human being.'" —Muhammad

Volume 2, Book 21, Number 221: Narrated Ibn Abbas:
"O Allah ! I surrender (my will) to You." —Muhammad​

In order to have access to the privileged parts of Sharia law, one has to submit to slavery and announce it publicly. Non-slaves—those who assert their own will and determination and freedom of choice in matters of religion and speech—are relegated by Sharia law to a sub-class. A key part of the public statement required to claim the privileged state of slavery under Sharia is to profess that all other men also must be made into slaves:

"I bear witness that there is no deity (none truly to be worshipped) but Allah..." —Shahada​

That's a reflection of this order from the Quran:

"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (Submission to Allah), Never will it be accepted of him." —Quran 3:85​

So I've asked repeatedly of Kalam why he elected to become a slave. He doesn't seem to want to answer.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Kalam, I'm shocked! Is that any way for a good slave to talk? By the way, why are you a slave, Kalam? That's something I'd like to understand better, and you seem reticent to talk about it. Aren't you proud to be a good slave?

what the hell are you talking about?

He and Mr. Fitnah appear to suffer from the same mental disability. I never thought that I'd see a more serious case than Mr. Fitnah, but then this tool came along...

You are the tool that anyone can use to reveal Islams nature.
The more you post the more of Islam is seen ,and you are not the one posting scripture.

 

[Kalam]

what the hell are you talking about?

He and Mr. Fitnah appear to suffer from the same mental disability. I never thought that I'd see a more serious case than Mr. Fitnah, but then this tool came along...

You are the tool that anyone can use to reveal Islams nature.
The more you post the more of Islam is seen ,and you are not the one posting scripture.

He and Mr. Fitnah appear to suffer from the same mental disability. I never thought that I'd see a more serious case than Mr. Fitnah, but then this tool came along...

Then again...

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Thanks for another pointless kalabyte.

 

[logical4u]

You still did not answer the question about the examples you gave.... Were those leaders of conquest or immediately following conquest when other territories were "paying" tribute (in other words, another society's resources)?

I answered your question directly. 'Abdul Hamid I did not conquer anything; military expenditures were reduced during his tenure due to his pacifistic nature. Even "leaders of conquest" did not subsist off of plunder. Taking anything from civilians in enemy territory without full compensation is forbidden in Shari'ah.

Not only will you not answer the question, you remove it from your answering post, maybe you think others will forget that you were asked the same question, four times.

That's funny -- I'm looking at my last post as I type this and I see both parts of the question that I already answered. Do you need someone to point it out for you?


Can you please provide evidence from any of those links that most of the Ummah's subsistence came from plunder?


It would first be necessary for you to provide specific evidence to support your claims, something you have consistently failed to do...


No.


I suppose it varies from person to person.


Was the Qur'anic ayah that directly contradicted your claim not sufficient?


Yet your participation in this argument implies that you think your knowledge of Shari'ah is sufficient to reject it categorically...


Poverty and misery:
Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're going to keep making asinine statements like that without specific proof, you should stick to posting in the Romper Room.

The ME has people that have money beyond our comprehension from oil revenues. Why isn't that used to improve the living standard for every citizen?

These people?

Saudi Arabia has donated £49 billion in aid in the past three decades - making it the world's most generous donor nation per capita​

Saudis donate aid to non-Muslims - Telegraph

As for those who don't donate, we ask them the same question:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGoD-IzXix8]YouTube - Muhammads in Africa[/ame]

Why don't you see "muslim charities" that are actually used to improve the standard of living for the poorest living among islam countries?

Take your pick.

Islamic Charity - Ummah Welfare Trust (UWT) Commited to 100% Donations
Zakat Foundation of America
Islamic Relief Home
Helping Hand -- for Relief and Development
Hidaya Foundation - Home
Life for Relief and Development: Home
MuslIm Aid Donate Now : Muslim Aid 25 years of serving humanity
Muslim Charity - Home Page

Watch this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA9_bySZgSU]YouTube - Pakistan flood victims receive aid from Jamaat-e-Islami (FRANCE24 Report)[/ame]

That was one (1) leader out of several. Why didn't you answer for the rest of them?
"'Abdul Hamid I did not conquer anything; military expenditures were reduced during his tenure due to his pacifistic nature. Even "leaders of conquest" did not subsist off of plunder. Taking anything from civilians in enemy territory without full compensation is forbidden in Shari'ah."
Isn't a special tax (that would be a tribute) required by non-muslims? Isn't that 'tribute' required of conquered territories? Didn't Abdul Hamid run the 'empire' when other territories had been conquered (that would mean they were paying taxes/tributes)? I understand why you want to misrepresent the 'empire' by pointing out that he reduced the military (that seems perfectly peaceful) while collecting taxes/tributes from hundreds of thousands of peoples that were recently conquered, it supports the "implication" that islam is good, and does not leave a trail of misery. Why didn't it last? Was it because once the conquered had 'everything' taken from them there was no wealth to support the greedy leaders of islam? Was it because islam was weak? Are you going to blame it on the crusades, and declare that the innocent islams (that were conquering and killing Christians), were just minding their own business? Was it because the greedy leaders blew through the tribute money and wanted more, and so oppressed every citizen in their territory?

As for jihad donations
"Now, let us have a closer look at what the Koran says about the infidels:-

Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them(2:191)
Make war on the infidels living in your neighboorhood (9:123)
When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)
Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)
Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)
The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)
Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise Islam. (5:33)
The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)
Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies
(22:19)

Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)
The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65)
Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)
Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)
Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorise the infidels (8:60)
The Qur’an certainly proclaims that when the time is appropriate, Muslims must use force to convert the unbelievers to Islam. For the non-Muslims, the alternative to this is to pay the humiliating protection money (Jizya tax) or be killed (by beheading, of course). A militarily dominant Islam, without doubt, precludes the peaceful co-existence with the unbelievers if the Muslims have to abide strictly by the unalterable stipulations of the Qur’an."

Doesn't that pretty much say it all for anyone claiming they want Shari'ah as a form of government?

As for the posts on charities, I found them very interesting.
Saudi Arabia did not donate to a 'non-muslim' country (even though there was a signifiant muslim population) UNTIL 2006. It was to IMPROVE THEIR IMAGE AFTER THE 9/11 ATTACKS (would that be deception, cause they haven't been donating much since).
The 'charity' group in Pakistan: one man said the government did not provide for them, but this political/religious group did and they would "repay" them with their lives if necessary in the future. When was the last time you heard anyone say that about a Christian charity????????????????????????????????????
Is that something they have to agree to to get food?

BTW Thank you for attempting to answer my questions. I appreciate your patience, and I do understand why you do not want to reveal the worst parts of islam, especially if you disregard it in your personal life and focus on the spiritual.

 

[logical4u]

Kalam, I'm shocked! Is that any way for a good slave to talk? By the way, why are you a slave, Kalam? That's something I'd like to understand better, and you seem reticent to talk about it. Aren't you proud to be a good slave?

what the hell are you talking about?

Sharia. It is the law of slavery, in which some slaves are "more equal" than other slaves:

"You have indeed in the Messenger of God (Muhammad) a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is God and the Final Day." —Quran 33:21

Hadith, Sahih Bukhari

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 622: Narrated Anas:
"I am Allah's Slave and His Apostle." —Muhammad

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 360: Narrated Al-Mughira:
"Shouldn't I be a thankful slave (of Allah)?" —Muhammad

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 361: Narrated Aisha:
"Shouldn't I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?" —Muhammad

Volume 1, Book 12, Number 794: Narrated Shaqlq bin Salama:
"I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and I also testify that Muhammad is His slave and His Apostle." —Muhammad

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 297: Narrated Abu Huraira:
"I testify that I am Allah's Slave and His Apostle." —Muhammad

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 568: Narrated Ibn Abbas:
[To Allah] "They are Your slaves And if You forgive them, Verily you, only You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." —Muhammad

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 108: Narrated Mu'adh:
"Allah's right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him. And slave's right on Allah is that He should not punish him who worships none besides Him." —Muhammad

Volume 1, Book 12, Number 794: Narrated Shaqlq bin Salama:
"Peace be on us and on the true pious slaves of Allah." —Muhammad

Volume 1, Book 12, Number 807: Narrated Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani:
"Allah has said, 'In this morning some of my slaves remained as true believers and some became non-believers.'" —Muhammad

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 595: Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah said, 'If My slave loves the meeting with Me, I too love the meeting with him; and if he dislikes the meeting with Me, I too dislike the meeting with him.'" —Muhammad

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 596: Narrated Abu Huraira:
"Allah said, 'I am to my slave as he thinks of Me.'" —Muhammad

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 373: Narrated Abu Huraira:
"Allah said to Paradise, 'You are My Mercy which I bestow on whoever I wish of my servants.' Then Allah said to the (Hell) Fire, 'You are my (means of) punishment by which I punish whoever I wish of my slaves.'" —Muhammad

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 467: Narrated Abu Huraira:
"Allah said, 'I have prepared for My Pious slaves things which have never been seen by an eye, or heard by an ear, or imagined by a human being.'" —Muhammad

Volume 2, Book 21, Number 221: Narrated Ibn Abbas:
"O Allah ! I surrender (my will) to You." —Muhammad​

In order to have access to the privileged parts of Sharia law, one has to submit to slavery and announce it publicly. Non-slaves—those who assert their own will and determination and freedom of choice in matters of religion and speech—are relegated by Sharia law to a sub-class. A key part of the public statement required to claim the privileged state of slavery under Sharia is to profess that all other men also must be made into slaves:

"I bear witness that there is no deity (none truly to be worshipped) but Allah..." —Shahada​

That's a reflection of this order from the Quran:

"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (Submission to Allah), Never will it be accepted of him." —Quran 3:85​

So I've asked repeatedly of Kalam why he elected to become a slave. He doesn't seem to want to answer.

I find this interesting. Don't muslims claim the god is the same as the one for the hebrews? I don't believe there is anywhere in the Bible the Lord addresses "His" people as "slaves". There are references to being a servant (that would be voluntary), but a slave has no choice. Wow!

 

[Kalam]

That was one (1) leader out of several. Why didn't you answer for the rest of them?

Because you didn't ask me to.

Isn't a special tax (that would be a tribute) required by non-muslims? Isn't that 'tribute' required of conquered territories? Didn't Abdul Hamid run the 'empire' when other territories had been conquered (that would mean they were paying taxes/tributes)?

It has been explained that the jizya is levied on non-Muslim males of fighting age in exchange for exemption from military service. If you're attempting to equate taxation with raping the resources of conquered territories, you'll have to provide some evidence beyond your usual fare of insipid assumptions and dishonest statements.

I understand why you want to misrepresent the 'empire'

Please offer specific evidence of me "misrepresenting" anything in this discussion.

by pointing out that he reduced the military (that seems perfectly peaceful) while collecting taxes/tributes from hundreds of thousands of peoples that were recently conquered,

Incorrect. His rule occurred during a long period of stagnation and directly after the empire lost significant territorial holdings to Russia. When you insist on misrepresenting reality in an attempt to make it conform to your preconceptions, you are bound to make wildly inaccurate statements like this.

it supports the "implication" that islam is good, and does not leave a trail of misery. Why didn't it last? Was it because once the conquered had 'everything' taken from them there was no wealth to support the greedy leaders of islam?

It didn't last because his successors didn't adhere to Shari'ah.

Was it because the greedy leaders blew through the tribute money and wanted more, and so oppressed every citizen in their territory?

Evidence of anything like this occurring?

As for jihad donations
"Now, let us have a closer look at what the Koran says about the infidels:-

Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them(2:191)
Make war on the infidels living in your neighboorhood (9:123)
When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)
Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)
Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)
The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)
Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise Islam. (5:33)
The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)
Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies
(22:19)

Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)
The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65)
Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)
Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)
Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorise the infidels (8:60)
The Qur’an certainly proclaims that when the time is appropriate, Muslims must use force to convert the unbelievers to Islam. For the non-Muslims, the alternative to this is to pay the humiliating protection money (Jizya tax) or be killed (by beheading, of course). A militarily dominant Islam, without doubt, precludes the peaceful co-existence with the unbelievers if the Muslims have to abide strictly by the unalterable stipulations of the Qur’an."

Doesn't that pretty much say it all for anyone claiming they want Shari'ah as a form of government?

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you didn't bother confirming the accuracy of those "excerpts" after you cut and pasted them from the propaganda site du jour.

As for the posts on charities, I found them very interesting.
Saudi Arabia did not donate to a 'non-muslim' country (even though there was a signifiant muslim population) UNTIL 2006. It was to IMPROVE THEIR IMAGE AFTER THE 9/11 ATTACKS (would that be deception, cause they haven't been donating much since).

Source?



Of course. If a Muslim does anything bad, it's because of his religion. If he does anything good, he's "deceiving" you. You are truly an idiot.

The 'charity' group in Pakistan: one man said the government did not provide for them, but this political/religious group did and they would "repay" them with their lives if necessary in the future.

Actually, he said that they would "sacrifice" themselves, meaning that they would make sacrifices to repay the Jama'at for their help in the future.

When was the last time you heard anyone say that about a Christian charity????????????????????????????????????

I suppose Christianity doesn't inspire the same feeling of brotherhood in its followers.

Is that something they have to agree to to get food?

Can you provide evidence of this, or are you lying out of your ass again?

BTW Thank you for attempting to answer my questions. I appreciate your patience, and I do understand why you do not want to reveal the worst parts of islam, especially if you disregard it in your personal life and focus on the spiritual.

Wow.

Here, you imply that your knowledge of Islam is greater than mine, that I'm somehow misrepresenting it to you, and that I don't actually follow the religion.

This type of arrogance and immense dishonesty seems to be typical of Christian critics of the religion. Perhaps I should begin associating those traits with Christians in general, eh?

Come back when you can discuss something without lying and assuming that you know more about it than a person who lives it every day.

 

[Kalam]

I find this interesting. Don't muslims claim the god is the same as the one for the hebrews? I don't believe there is anywhere in the Bible the Lord addresses "His" people as "slaves". There are references to being a servant (that would be voluntary), but a slave has no choice. Wow!

That's because you're reading the Bible in translation. 'Abd can be rendered as either "slave" or "servant" depending on the translator's preference. This probably extends to Hebrew as well. 'Abd ul-Masih (Slave of the Messiah) is a Christian name.

Don't let any of this hinder you from continuing to make reckless assumptions, though

 

[Hister]

I find this interesting. Don't muslims claim the god is the same as the one for the hebrews? I don't believe there is anywhere in the Bible the Lord addresses "His" people as "slaves". There are references to being a servant (that would be voluntary), but a slave has no choice. Wow!

That's because you're reading the Bible in translation. 'Abd can be rendered as either "slave" or "servant" depending on the translator's preference. This probably extends to Hebrew as well. 'Abd ul-Masih (Slave of the Messiah) is a Christian name.

Don't let any of this hinder you from continuing to make reckless assumptions, though

C'mon folks, kalam isn't a SLAVE! He's a SERVANT!!!

kboy, go get me a rum and coke, and make me a ham sandwich.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I find this interesting. Don't muslims claim the god is the same as the one for the hebrews? I don't believe there is anywhere in the Bible the Lord addresses "His" people as "slaves". There are references to being a servant (that would be voluntary), but a slave has no choice. Wow!

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

 

[logical4u]

That was one (1) leader out of several. Why didn't you answer for the rest of them?

Because you didn't ask me to.

Isn't a special tax (that would be a tribute) required by non-muslims? Isn't that 'tribute' required of conquered territories? Didn't Abdul Hamid run the 'empire' when other territories had been conquered (that would mean they were paying taxes/tributes)?

It has been explained that the jizya is levied on non-Muslim males of fighting age in exchange for exemption from military service. If you're attempting to equate taxation with raping the resources of conquered territories, you'll have to provide some evidence beyond your usual fare of insipid assumptions and dishonest statements.


Please offer specific evidence of me "misrepresenting" anything in this discussion.


Incorrect. His rule occurred during a long period of stagnation and directly after the empire lost significant territorial holdings to Russia. When you insist on misrepresenting reality in an attempt to make it conform to your preconceptions, you are bound to make wildly inaccurate statements like this.


It didn't last because his successors didn't adhere to Shari'ah.


Evidence of anything like this occurring?




I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that you didn't bother confirming the accuracy of those "excerpts" after you cut and pasted them from the propaganda site du jour.


Source?



Of course. If a Muslim does anything bad, it's because of his religion. If he does anything good, he's "deceiving" you. You are truly an idiot.


Actually, he said that they would "sacrifice" themselves, meaning that they would make sacrifices to repay the Jama'at for their help in the future.


I suppose Christianity doesn't inspire the same feeling of brotherhood in its followers.

Is that something they have to agree to to get food?

Can you provide evidence of this, or are you lying out of your ass again?

BTW Thank you for attempting to answer my questions. I appreciate your patience, and I do understand why you do not want to reveal the worst parts of islam, especially if you disregard it in your personal life and focus on the spiritual.

Wow.

Here, you imply that your knowledge of Islam is greater than mine, that I'm somehow misrepresenting it to you, and that I don't actually follow the religion.

This type of arrogance and immense dishonesty seems to be typical of Christian critics of the religion. Perhaps I should begin associating those traits with Christians in general, eh?

Come back when you can discuss something without lying and assuming that you know more about it than a person who lives it every day.

I am asking questions, not making statements. I have said that I do not know about "your" religion. That is why I am asking questions. The sources I used for charities were the ones you gave. The person that gave the money in 2006 specifically said that it was because of 9/11 and to improve the perception of Saudi Arabia in the world. To me, that is like some of the famous capitalist buying legacies after they fought and did very uethical things to make 'empires' of their own. You do not disagree with my 'perception', you seem to want to humiliate me instead. I am making observations because you have held yourself up as knowledgeable on islam. It seems when you insult me, that it is so you can avoid answering the question(s).

As for the "taxes", others say things that are quite different than your claim that it was for exemption of military service. It still does not give non-muslims equal rights. Who is being dishonest?

As for the questions of islam 'dynasty' not lasting due to running out of other people's money. It is PURE speculation. If this government is so great, why doesn't it last beyond a short time after the "conquering"? If all was going well, why wouldn't they keep doing Shari'ah? Your version of history just doesn't make sense. You say that there are no Shari'ah states, currently. Yet, there are 57? states of islam, and in most of them, non-muslims are treated very badly (that would be killed, burned out of business, or family members harrassed with bodily harm). They are also "third world" countries. If islam holds knowledge and charity so dear, why are these countries in this state? Still? After billions and billions of dollars in oil revenue?

You are telling us this is a great system and should be used today, but your examples are partially documented failures from centuries aga. It doesn't add up.

When I give you quotes from the Quran, I noticed that you did not say those statements were not in the Quran, you tried to discredit the source. Are those 'scriptures' in the Quran, or not? Calling questions "dishonesty" does not make it so. It hurts your credibility when you are asked straight forward questions and you avoid the questions by insulting the person that is asking the questions (that would be the one that does not have the same knowledge as you or they would not be asking the questions).

 

[logical4u]

I find this interesting. Don't muslims claim the god is the same as the one for the hebrews? I don't believe there is anywhere in the Bible the Lord addresses "His" people as "slaves". There are references to being a servant (that would be voluntary), but a slave has no choice. Wow!

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Based on that link, it could be said that muslims worship Mohammed the same way Mohammed acused the jews and Christians of worshipping rabbis?

 

[Kalam]

I am asking questions, not making statements. I have said that I do not know about "your" religion. That is why I am asking questions.

You aren't looking for real answers, you're looking to have your preconceived notions about Islam confirmed. That's why you seem willing to believe anything negative about the religion without bothering to confirm it; that's why you read through articles, ignore everything positive, and attempt to distort the truth in such a way that it appears to support your claims. That's a dishonest way to carry on a discussion.

The sources I used for charities were the ones you gave.

Yet you said nothing about any of them and chose to focus instead on the article about Saudi Arabia. Even then, you ignored the fact that it is the most generous country per capita and attempted to make some silly nonsense up about their aid to non-Muslims being a form of "deception."

The person that gave the money in 2006 specifically said that it was because of 9/11 and to improve the perception of Saudi Arabia in the world. To me, that is like some of the famous capitalist buying legacies after they fought and did very uethical things to make 'empires' of their own.

You've made it more than clear that Muslims can do nothing positive as far as you're concerned.

You do not disagree with my 'perception', you seem to want to humiliate me instead.

No, you're doing that on your own.

I am making observations because you have held yourself up as knowledgeable on islam.

I'm not an expert or a scholar. I'm an ordinary Muslim who takes an active interest in studying his religion and I happen to know more about it than other people who post here on a regular basis.

It seems when you insult me, that it is so you can avoid answering the question(s).

Then perhaps you should point me to any questions I haven't answered to your satisfaction.

As for the "taxes", others say things that are quite different than your claim that it was for exemption of military service.

Symbolically, it represents their acceptance of God's law as zakah does for Muslims. Practically, it grants exemption from service. That's why it's taken from males of fighting age. It seems fairly obvious that a tax taken from that specific demographic serves that specific purpose.

Who are these "others"? Mr. Fitnah, the tool who seeks out the most extreme and shallow interpretations of Islam and stupidly parades them as representative of the religion as a whole? Rezonator, the tool who does the same thing but in less intelligent and more trollish manner?

It still does not give non-muslims equal rights.

1. Define "equal rights."

2. Who said it did? I said that they have equal status in matter of qisas, which they do according to Hanafi jurisprudence.

Who is being dishonest?

The kuffar, as always...

As for the questions of islam 'dynasty' not lasting due to running out of other people's money. It is PURE speculation.

Then why bother posting it?

If this government is so great, why doesn't it last beyond a short time after the "conquering"? If all was going well, why wouldn't they keep doing Shari'ah?

Because leaders deviated from the model society established by the Rashidun. The end of the Rashidun Caliphate marked the end of Shari'i governance for the most part, because the Umayyads established hereditary rule. In order for Shari'ah to exist perpetually, leaders must be chosen by the Ummah rather than being given power as a birthright. Leaders who are born into power are not necessarily qualified, are less connected to their followers, and are more likely to be corrupt. The Ottomans had the same problem. That's why Shari'ah among the Umayyads and the Ottomans never lasted beyond the reign of one ruler.

Of course, all of this was foreseen by Rasul Allah (SAWS):

Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman reported that the Messenger of Allah said,

"Prophethood will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain, then Allah will raise it up wherever he wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood remaining with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, He will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a reign of violently oppressive (The reign of Muslim kings who are partially unjust) rule and it will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, there will be a reign of tyrannical rule and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, Allah will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Then, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood."

Then Hudhaifah said, "The Prophet stopped speaking." - As-Silsilah As-Sahihah, vol. 1, no. 5​

Your version of history just doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't expect it to make sense to someone who admits that their understanding of history is based on speculation...

You say that there are no Shari'ah states, currently. Yet, there are 57? states of islam, and in most of them, non-muslims are treated very badly (that would be killed, burned out of business, or family members harrassed with bodily harm). They are also "third world" countries. If islam holds knowledge and charity so dear, why are these countries in this state? Still? After billions and billions of dollars in oil revenue?

Why? Because of an amalgam of political, economic, and historical reasons that cannot be explained in a single post. It has little to do with our discussion.

You are telling us this is a great system and should be used today, but your examples are partially documented failures from centuries aga. It doesn't add up.

Your criteria for "failure" is completely arbitrary and was concocted solely to discredit Islam. How is anyone supposed to explain the successes of something to you when your expectations are completely unrealistic?

When I give you quotes from the Quran, I noticed that you did not say those statements were not in the Quran, you tried to discredit the source. Are those 'scriptures' in the Quran, or not?

Some are small, out-of-context excerpts from much longer and more nuanced passages. Others are inaccurate summaries of verses that say something else entirely. What's the point of attempting to explain the truth to someone credulous enough to believe these things in the first place?

Calling questions "dishonesty" does not make it so. It hurts your credibility when you are asked straight forward questions and you avoid the questions by insulting the person that is asking the questions (that would be the one that does not have the same knowledge as you or they would not be asking the questions).

Your questions are phrased negatively and generally contain assumptions, which makes it clear to me that you're more interested in trying to prove a point than you are in actually learning anything.

 

[logical4u]

I am asking questions, not making statements. I have said that I do not know about "your" religion. That is why I am asking questions.

You aren't looking for real answers, you're looking to have your preconceived notions about Islam confirmed. That's why you seem willing to believe anything negative about the religion without bothering to confirm it; that's why you read through articles, ignore everything positive, and attempt to distort the truth in such a way that it appears to support your claims. That's a dishonest way to carry on a discussion.

The sources I used for charities were the ones you gave.

Yet you said nothing about any of them and chose to focus instead on the article about Saudi Arabia. Even then, you ignored the fact that it is the most generous country per capita and attempted to make some silly nonsense up about their aid to non-Muslims being a form of "deception."


You've made it more than clear that Muslims can do nothing positive as far as you're concerned.


No, you're doing that on your own.


I'm not an expert or a scholar. I'm an ordinary Muslim who takes an active interest in studying his religion and I happen to know more about it than other people who post here on a regular basis.


Then perhaps you should point me to any questions I haven't answered to your satisfaction.


Symbolically, it represents their acceptance of God's law as zakah does for Muslims. Practically, it grants exemption from service. That's why it's taken from males of fighting age. It seems fairly obvious that a tax taken from that specific demographic serves that specific purpose.

Who are these "others"? Mr. Fitnah, the tool who seeks out the most extreme and shallow interpretations of Islam and stupidly parades them as representative of the religion as a whole? Rezonator, the tool who does the same thing but in less intelligent and more trollish manner?


1. Define "equal rights."

2. Who said it did? I said that they have equal status in matter of qisas, which they do according to Hanafi jurisprudence.


The kuffar, as always...


Then why bother posting it?


Because leaders deviated from the model society established by the Rashidun. The end of the Rashidun Caliphate marked the end of Shari'i governance for the most part, because the Umayyads established hereditary rule. In order for Shari'ah to exist perpetually, leaders must be chosen by the Ummah rather than being given power as a birthright. Leaders who are born into power are not necessarily qualified, are less connected to their followers, and are more likely to be corrupt. The Ottomans had the same problem. That's why Shari'ah among the Umayyads and the Ottomans never lasted beyond the reign of one ruler.

Of course, all of this was foreseen by Rasul Allah (SAWS):

Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman reported that the Messenger of Allah said,

"Prophethood will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain, then Allah will raise it up wherever he wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood remaining with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, He will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a reign of violently oppressive (The reign of Muslim kings who are partially unjust) rule and it will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, there will be a reign of tyrannical rule and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, Allah will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Then, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood."

Then Hudhaifah said, "The Prophet stopped speaking." - As-Silsilah As-Sahihah, vol. 1, no. 5​

I wouldn't expect it to make sense to someone who admits that their understanding of history is based on speculation...


Why? Because of an amalgam of political, economic, and historical reasons that cannot be explained in a single post. It has little to do with our discussion.


Your criteria for "failure" is completely arbitrary and was concocted solely to discredit Islam. How is anyone supposed to explain the successes of something to you when your expectations are completely unrealistic?

When I give you quotes from the Quran, I noticed that you did not say those statements were not in the Quran, you tried to discredit the source. Are those 'scriptures' in the Quran, or not?

Some are small, out-of-context excerpts from much longer and more nuanced passages. Others are inaccurate summaries of verses that say something else entirely. What's the point of attempting to explain the truth to someone credulous enough to believe these things in the first place?

Calling questions "dishonesty" does not make it so. It hurts your credibility when you are asked straight forward questions and you avoid the questions by insulting the person that is asking the questions (that would be the one that does not have the same knowledge as you or they would not be asking the questions).

Your questions are phrased negatively and generally contain assumptions, which makes it clear to me that you're more interested in trying to prove a point than you are in actually learning anything.

You are right. I am trying to prove a point. There is no evidence that "goodness" is a part of any current islam government. I asked you, hoping that in the mess of today's world, you could point out some place that was governed by islam that actually worked. I did frame my questions negatively. There is much to be negative about islam governence.
"Your" examples left out a lot of information, and I, the skeptic, pointed it out. Maybe that makes me a negative person.

I look at it this way: if islam was an investment for my future, what kind of return could I expect. I used you as a broker, explaining the "investment", to see if I was going to invest or recommend it to aquaintances.
You repeated the company line, but would not discuss any of the risks, or "played" them down as trivial. I would not invest in islam, and would not recommend it, based on the way you answered the questions. It was your chance to make a sale, instead, I feel, you went for the "I know best approach, and you should just listen to me without asking these questions".

I do respect you for finally admitting "some" of those quotes were in the Quaran. Thank you for spending the time answering my questions, but I do not feel islam is a good investment for "this" or any country, based on the examples in the world today.

I do know that there are "good" muslims, but feel they are trapped by their "culture". I hope the ones that are in the USA will spread their wings and fly as individuals, and not tow the company line.

 

[chanel]

R. James Woolsey was director of central intelligence under President Clinton. Andrew C. McCarthy was the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the perpetrators of the first attack on the World Trade Center. Lt. Gen. Harry E. "Ed" Soyster was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 1988 to 1991. Their full report will be available online at ShariahtheThreat.com at noon today.

Today, the United States faces a similarly insidious ideological threat: Shariah, the authoritarian doctrine that animates the Islamists and their jihadism. Translated as "the path," Shariah is a comprehensive framework designed to govern all aspects of life. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of it as a "religious" code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere - economic, social, military, legal and political. That regulation is oppressive, discriminatory, utterly inimical to our core constitutional liberties and destructive of equal protection under the law, especially for women.

WOOLSEY & MCCARTHY & SOYSTER: Second opinion needed on Shariah - Washington Times

Islamophobic idiots?

 

[Freeman]

The American Muslim Organization has been pushing for Sharia Courts for a while. They are using Native American courts and Jewish courts to argue that it's already permissable.

Native American Courts: Precedent for an Islamic arbitral system *

by Issa Smith

In the United States today, there is a system of courts which is just outside of the federal and state court systems, known as the American Indian Tribal Courts. The Tribal Courts deal with criminal, civil and family court issues, and have their own lawyers, judges, and court officials. The Muslim Community can learn from the experience of the American Indian Tribal Court System as we attempt to implement Muslim Family Law in North America.

The American Muslim (TAM)


Islamic Sharia and Jewish Halakha Arbitration Courts

by Sheila Musaji

There are a number of halakha courts representing different interpretations of Jewish law — Agudath Israel of America, Beth Din of America, etc.

All in all, it would seem that faith based arbitration is an existing part of our legal system, and that considering sharia as somehow less acceptable than halakha (or than Canon Law) has no basis in anything other than prejudice and stereotyping.

The American Muslim (TAM)

It's coming.

why jewish courts are allowed and not islamic laws?

 

[hipeter924]

R. James Woolsey was director of central intelligence under President Clinton. Andrew C. McCarthy was the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the perpetrators of the first attack on the World Trade Center. Lt. Gen. Harry E. "Ed" Soyster was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 1988 to 1991. Their full report will be available online at ShariahtheThreat.com at noon today.

Today, the United States faces a similarly insidious ideological threat: Shariah, the authoritarian doctrine that animates the Islamists and their jihadism. Translated as "the path," Shariah is a comprehensive framework designed to govern all aspects of life. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of it as a "religious" code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere - economic, social, military, legal and political. That regulation is oppressive, discriminatory, utterly inimical to our core constitutional liberties and destructive of equal protection under the law, especially for women.

WOOLSEY & MCCARTHY & SOYSTER: Second opinion needed on Shariah - Washington Times

Islamophobic idiots?

It won't arrive in the US, and if it does US states (as well as large portions of the military) will start declaring independence from Washington D.C. and the Supreme court as they are violating the US constitution. Now that would be the day.

 

[marryroy02]

First, they should note that not only fully accepted version of what could be applied to Muslim countries. Creeping Sharia theme does not have a legitimate political debate, is just a fad is xenophobia, fear mongering, nativism, intolerance and opportunism. Rather, leave the best civil discourse.