1. "Is that all this site is, just petty insults being hurled around in nearly every post? I can't think of a single thread I've viewed here that hasn't degenerated into this kind of senseless mudslinging."
Consider this: you deserve what you have received.
In fact, if things are as you describe them, it is a compliment to other posters who clearly and quickly identified you as being a dolt.
Actually, you're the only one that's been directly rude to me. And over what? Apparently this:
As far as I am concerned, your snarkie opening salvo had put you squarely in my sights. And there you will remain.
You will get the punishment you deserve for being less than civil.
A pity that no one in your past ever loved you enough to teach you manners.
You must be the single most thin-skinned person on the entire site if my "snarkie opening salvo" got you this butthurt. Your lack of decorum is not "punishment," it's just boring and shows you don't know how to argue or handle dissent. Thus far, every post of yours I've seen has consisted of a few short, simple sentences giving your almost-opinions, backed up by walls of text copied and pasted from someone else's writings, and sandwiched by venomous, and largely juvenile, comments directed at anyone who disagrees with you.
Congrats on thinking you proved that thing you thought you didn't want to prove, I guess.
I debunked every single one of the verses you used as "proof" for your argument. Or rather, I debunked someone else's arguments and someone else's proof, as you have some sort of aversion to being your own person defending your own opinions.
You got called out on your lack of reasoning and now you're butthurt that you can't even dispute a single thing I've said, so you just fall back on childish insults. I now understand why they made the Clean Debate Zone.
What utter nonsense. First, your link only addresses life insurance, whereas you claim that Islam bans all types of insurance. Second, Islam has no such ban. The verse you quoted, 5:91, bans gambling. Even assuming those two Hadith you cited are accurate, Islam clearly does not ban insurance, but "transactions which involved some uncertainty". To the common man, this means games of chance, i.e. something "determined by throwing a stone"--or perhaps in modern terms, a roll of the dice. Insurance policies do not involve uncertainty in the least; one party pays another a set amount of money, in exchange for the second party agreeing to pay the first a certain amount should certain circumstances arise--death, severe injury, the destruction of a house by a flood, etc.
You literally just said that all types of insurance are banned by Islam, and now you're saying that there is a type of Shariah-compliant insurance? Which is it?
First, the AIG bailout took place in September 2008; AIG didn't begin its "Shariah-compliant homeowner insurance" until December. Second, AIG is a business entity that sees a valuable niche in the market. They view themselves as being able to make a profit off of Muslims looking to buy insurance (because it's not un-Islamic, despite your claims to the contrary), and they clearly are. While I was and am opposed to the bailout of AIG or any other company, it is a private entity and should be free to market to whomever it feels it can.
19. In December 2008, Mr. Wolf and Representative Sue Myrick wrote to the American International Group –
“Since Americans are now de facto stockholders in your company, we feel it is our duty to inform them that your press release ignores the fact the
AIG is marketing products that support a radical political ideology, Shariah law.
Shariah law is a politicized and radical doctrine created in the 1920s, by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) founder Hassan Al-Banna, to compete against Western economics and
values. Due to radical ideas put forth by the Brotherhood, the Egyptian government banned the group, but it flourishes elsewhere. Today, Shariah law uses the same legal code championed by the Taliban and Osama bin LadenÂ’s al Queda. It promotes
Stone Age family laws that that amount to making women property, and enshrines horrific human rights abuses.”
BlueRidgeForum » David Ramadan: Are Virginia GOP Eyes ?Wide Shut??
AIG's products support AIG turning a profit. Additionally, shariah law was not created in the 1920's, nor was it a product of anyone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Making this claim is the equivalent of saying that Pat Robertson created Christian values. The Taliban and al-Qaeda blatantly misquote the Qur'an to support their ends, and their skewed interpretation of Islam is supported by the U.S. government and high-profile anti-Islam activists. The U.S. props up dictatorships and monarchies in Muslim countries, at times even overthrowing democratically-elected governments to do so, and those dictatorships and monarchies use state TV to propagate their version of what Islam is. In effect, Islamists/jihadis/etc. are the product of U.S. foreign aid and interventions that support their creation. These "Stone Age family laws" are the result of Western activities in the Middle East. The best way to do away with them is to end the support countries like the US and UK give to authoritarian governments abroad.
a. The above mentions that
sharia competes against American values.
In the letter to AIG, the Representative made these points:
".... under Shariah law, as practiced in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries:
• A woman cannot leave the house without her husband’s permission.
• Men can beat their “insubordinate” wives.
• Women who are convicted of adultery are punished by death by stoning.
• Apostasy from Islam is punished by death without trial.
• Non-Muslims under Shariah law are second-class citizens.
• Homosexuals and lesbians must be killed.
• Slavery is permitted and deemed legitimate.
“It is disheartening to think that
your products are helping Shariah to gain a foothold in the United States,” the Republican members of Congress wrote.
U.S. lawmakers scold AIG over Shariah finance
I'll requote a portion of that since you apparently missed it:
"under Shariah law, as practiced in Saudi Arabia". The claims they make--again, claims THEY make, not supported, objective facts--are relevant only to foreign countries. None of the quoted points here are a) Backed up at all, so far as I can tell by your source; nor are they b) Relevant at all to this case. You're whining about Shariah law and insurance, and none of the points listed here address insurance.
And no, Sharia does not innately compete with Western values or laws. The only Muslims that whine for special treatment in non-Muslim majority countries are butthurt liberals of the breed we see among nearly all minority groups. Having laws against murder, theft, etc. automatically means that a country's legal system is Sharia compliant. The one and only reason why they're able to get their way so often with these "discrimination" cases is the complete and utter lack of critical thinking on the part of judges, school districts, employers, etc. and their unwillingness to stick to what is objectively right when it means risking being falsely labelled as a bigot. All this "creeping Shariah" BS is literally 100% the fault of liberal non-Muslims who white guilt themselves into bowing to the demands of an overly vocal minority on the hunt for something to be offended by.
