Discussion: Islamic teachings by Dr. Badawi (Canada)

[Mr Spinkles]

Their religious beliefs and views are one thing and their submissiveness to the laws of the Islamic state is another thing. Whether you're a Muslim, semi-Muslim or non-Muslim, adultery (Zina), for example ,is illegal and punishable. When there is a penalty in Islam for Zina or drinking Alcohol, it's not because you harmed your personal relationship with God but because it's a crime against the society. Crime against the society, it does not matter the beliefs of the persons who commit it. In the example of Zina, a Muslim may commit Zina inside closed doors and secretly, it's a thing between him and his God alone but a Muslim commited Zina and four persons could see and hear what he did, here it exceeded his relationship with his God to his society and here it's punishable.

Well, you and TashaN have a disagreement about gay bars, but I was talking generally about laws that apply to Muslims but not non-Muslims. There are such laws, correct? My argument applies to those laws, whatever they are.

Maro didn't respond when I posted the links to the modern medical consensus, which is that moderate drinking is actually healthier than not drinking. Would you care to respond? How is two glasses of red wine with dinner, which has well-evidenced health benefits, a "crime against society"?

Oh, gay bars would be illegal in the Islamic state.

And what would be Islam's perfectly just, merciful punishment for people who go to gay bars, commit sodomy, etc.? I asked this before and no one answered.

No one forces anyone to embrace the teachings of Islam, however people will be forced to submit to the laws of the Islamic state.

And who will force them? Other people. Imperfect, corruptible human beings. Not God.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You should know that a non Muslim president of an Islamic state is not widely accepted opinion and very nontraditional. But even if we accepted this opinion, the atheist president's duties, obligations and authorities would not be different from his Muslim counterpart. In other words, he would work to achieve the best interest of his nation inside the frame of the higher Islamic values and would work to implement the Islamic Shari'a (according the constitution of the Islamic state).

How do you know that? What if an atheist president in a Muslim country ran for president on the basis of being a reformer, and working to change the government so it no longer implemented Shari'a law? What if that's why the voters voted for him? Then surely if he were elected, that's what he would do.

"A Muslim girl would never want to marry an atheist",
"An Islamic majority would always vote for all of Shari'a law",
"An atheist could be elected president but he would work to implement Shari'a"
....You and maro and TashaN seem to know things that you couldn't possibly know unless you were psychic! You seem to know what ALL Muslims think, and what ALL Muslims would do, in any situation. And you seem to know that NO group of Muslims will ever form different views on Islam, even though of course we already have Ba'hais and Sufis, Sunni and Shia. You seem to be certain that Islam can only grow, it will never fluctuate or decrease in numbers in any group of people, and that once an Islamic state is established the non-Muslims will inevitably embrace Islam freely because they will inevitably see how wonderful (your version of) the Islamic state is.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By the way, not4me, what would you do if someone forced you to "submit" to a Jewish state? How would you feel?

How do you reasonably expect others to feel, and how do you expect them to react, if you try to force them to "submit" to your religion?

 

[Sahar]

Well, you and TashaN have a disagreement about gay bars, but I was talking generally about laws that apply to Muslims but not non-Muslims. There are such laws, correct? My argument applies to those laws, whatever they are.

I was talking generally too and with some examples. I wonder if my point was not clear enough!

Maro didn't respond when I posted the links to the modern medical consensus, which is that moderate drinking is actually healthier than not drinking. Would you care to respond? How is two glasses of red wine with dinner, which has well-evidenced health benefits, a "crime against society"?

"They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, "In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit." Al-Baqara: 219
Theoretically, I can say yeah two glasses of wine, what harm would they do? But practically and on the level of the society, this is not the case. All what you have to do is to look at the societies where drinking wine/Alcohol is a norm. You will find they suffer from Alcoholism (in most of Muslim societies Alcoholism is not an issue at all), car accidents because of it, abusing one's family and others, murder...etc. Veiling the mind leads to all types of crimes and chaos.
I replied and I haven't read the article yet.

And what would be Islam's perfectly just, merciful punishment for people who go to gay bars, commit sodomy, etc.? I asked this before and no one answered.

Sodomy is a type of adultery (Zina) and the punishment is the same as that of committing Zina. Other opinions exist regarding what punishment should be carried out.

And who will force them? Other people. Imperfect, corruptible human beings. Not God.

The government that is chosen by the people.

 

[Tsarkoe Selo]

You can't marry whom you love as an atheist if she was a muslim girl, simply because she won't agree to do so if she was really a muslim.

Oh please be kidding me.

Also I remember hearing that sodomy is equal to adultery? Isn't an opposition leader under trial in Malaysia for Sodomy?

 

[Sahar]

How do you know that? What if an atheist president in a Muslim country ran for president on the basis of being a reformer, and working to change the government so it no longer implemented Shari'a law? What if that's why the voters voted for him? Then surely if he were elected, that's what he would do.

Mr Spinkles, is it legal in France or even in your country to form an Islamic party whose agenda is to implement Islamic Shari'a and establish an Islamic state and which opposes the secular and democratic principles of such countries?

"A Muslim girl would never want to marry an atheist",
"An Islamic majority would always vote for all of Shari'a law",
"An atheist could be elected president but he would work to implement Shari'a"
....You and maro and TashaN seem to know things that you couldn't possibly know unless you were psychic! You seem to know what ALL Muslims think, and what ALL Muslims would do, in any situation. And you seem to know that NO group of Muslims will ever form different views on Islam, even though of course we already have Ba'hais and Sufis, Sunni and Shia. You seem to be certain that Islam can only grow, it will never fluctuate or decrease in numbers in any group of people, and that once an Islamic state is established the non-Muslims will inevitably embrace Islam freely because they will inevitably see how wonderful (your version of) the Islamic state is.

I think all the previous talk was based on the idea that an Islamic party (which reflects our version of the Islamic state) was chosen by the people and established an Islamic state. Most of the talk is centered around how it would like if there was already an Islamic state/Islamic government.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sodomy is a type of adultery (Zina) and the punishment is the same as that of committing Zina. Other opinions exist regarding what punishment should be carried out.

What sort of perfectly just, merciful punishment would be involved? A fine? Thirty days in jail?

Mr Spinkles, is it legal in France or even in your country to form an Islamic party whose agenda is to implement Islamic Shari'a and establish an Islamic state and which opposes the secular and democratic principles of such countries?

Yes, it would be perfectly legal in the United States, everyone has the right to form a political party based on their political beliefs. This is gauranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In fact the Islamic Thinkers Society is precisely what you have described: Islamic Thinkers Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are many fringe political parties in the U.S. which are radical or revolutionary, but perfectly legal. The National Socialist Movement is a neo-Nazi group, for example. There is also the New Black Panther Party, which is a black-supremacist group that advocates worldwide revolution and most of its important leaders are Muslims who are also members of the Nation of Islam. And here are some more Islamic political groups: Islam in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In France I know that it is illegal to display the Nazi swastika, or to deny the Holocaust, and this is a reaction to what happened to them during World War II. But I would be very surprised if any political parties were illegal in France on any other ideological grounds.

 

[kai]

as a point of interest:

List of political parties in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sahar]

What sort of perfectly just, merciful punishment would be involved? A fine? Thirty days in jail?

Yes, it would be perfectly legal in the United States, everyone has the right to form a political party based on their political beliefs. This is gauranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In fact the Islamic Thinkers Society is precisely what you have described: Islamic Thinkers Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are many fringe political parties in the U.S. which are radical or revolutionary, but perfectly legal. The National Socialist Movement is a neo-Nazi group, for example. There is also the New Black Panther Party, which is a black-supremacist group that advocates worldwide revolution and most of its important leaders are Muslims who are also members of the Nation of Islam. And here are some more Islamic political groups: Islam in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In France I know that it is illegal to display the Nazi swastika, or to deny the Holocaust, and this is a reaction to what happened to them during World War II. But I would be very surprised if any political parties were illegal in France on any other ideological grounds.

So can a member of an Islamic political party get nominated to the presidency and if he got elected, can he change the political system of the country from secular democratic to Islamic?

 

[maro]

1) What you consider to be "pornography" may be inspiring art or literature or cinema to others. Who gets to judge? Can an atheist like me be the judge?

Can a muslim like me be the judge on the morality of stuff presented in the american T.V and cinema of the U.S ?

2) Personally, I am not interested in sodomy or pornography; but if other mature adults enjoy it in private among themselves, and they aren't hurting you or me, what right does the government have to interfere?

3) If you are against these things, you could speak out against them; protest, demonstrate; organize boycotts; write opinion letters to the newspaper. Wouldn't it be better to convince people that way? Is it really necessary to use the police to regulate what mature adults do in privacy, as if they are children who can't make choices for themselves?

the mature adults can do whatever they like in private..certainly the government is not going to spy on them ..and the police is not going to enter their bedrooms...as long as they are not allowing four eye witneses to testify on them..it's their own business

4) What just, merciful punishment does Islamic law prescribe for people who commit sodomy or produce/consume pornography?

As for sodomy , and after the availability of four eye witnesses ,it's punishable by death..as for producing pornography..i don't know

Yet again I'm surprised. You mean to tell me that there would not be repurcussions for artists like Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Ghogh in an Islamic state?

yep..i mean to tell you that there wouldn't be repurcussions for such **artists**

I fully realize that is how many religious people think. However, do you think that it is reasonable for one to believe something that one does not understand? If you do not understand how a certain law / idea is just or reasonable, then perhaps it is because that particular idea is not just or reasonable. Isn't that always a possibility when we consider any idea?

and who told you that we are qualified to fully understand the divine justice...we may still do our best ,though

If your goal is to figure out the wisdom behind every ruling, then you have already assumed that every ruling is wise, and therefore your thinking is not objective. To be objective you must be willing to follow facts and reason wherever they lead, even if they lead to the conclusion that the ruling is not wise (or at least, not perfectly wise, that there is room for improvement).

first ,i accepted this religion to be divine ...and consequently i accepted all its rulings to be perfect and wise...and not vice versa...
so yes, i have a pre-assumption that every ruling is perfectly wise

By the way, the consensus today, based on very strong evidence from medical science, is that drinking excessive amounts of alcohol is harmful to one's health, but drinking moderately is healthier than not drinking at all. See Alcohol use: Why moderation is key - MayoClinic.com , Long-term effects of alcohol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , 26 Substance Abuse (from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

Thanks for the link
the quran doesn't deny it might have some benefits , however it says that the harm is much more evident ,not4me has already posted the verse

I see what you're saying. I don't think secularism has the specific connotations you listed. Instead, I think it is basically neutral about cosmic truths, except for the self-evident truth that God does not intervene in politics. He may or may not exist, he may or may not care, but he clearly does not intervene. The election of George W. Bush is proof of this. Secularism is simply this realization applied to government.

it's not then neutral..

I agree that it should be possible to enact any law, given a large enough majority. In the U.S., it would take a two-thirds vote to change the Constitution to get rid of the privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion gaurantees.

Of course there are attempts to subvert these gaurantees all the time, which is why people like me find ourselves loudly defending the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, for example, while the conservatives call us unpatriotic.

In any case, if the Constitution is changed to no longer guarantee basic rights and freedoms, then a simple majority (in the Congress) could pass all the oppressive laws they want. I agree with you that we should have this ability (without it we wouldn't be able to improve the Constitution when necessary). But I disagree that we should ever use this power to take away our own guaranteed freedoms.

what are the gurantees you keep talking about ? if the majority say something ,in a democratic system ,that doesn't appeal to you...what ia your authority to stop them ?
should we make another system where the minority -not the majority- decides (in case the majority was corrupt and irresponsible)
i guess we have no other choice..either the majority decide..or the minority decide...

People under an Islamic state can blaspheme by drawing cartoons of Muhammad, then?

nope..nor jesus..nor moses..nor buddha...

Yet so many things were mentioned literally and none of them were beyond what human beings could have imagined 1,300 years ago. My point is that it could be the imperfect work of human beings long ago. That would explain why it doesn't simply say that slavery is wrong, period, and why there is no mention of the ethics of genetic engineering.

have you read the quran ?

By the way, what about the organ transplant issue in Morroco? Why on Earth did a woman have to get a PhD in order to convince Morrocans that organ transplants should be legal, that they are heroic and life-saving procedures?

i have watched the programm again on the youtube,but i couldn't figure out what was hindering the law in the first place

 

[TashaN]

Please, if there is some decent scholar who says that it's allowed to have dance clubs, pornography studios and bars in the Islamic state, can you give us a link or something?
When Umar entered Jerusalem, he didn't touch the places of worship; the churches not the dance clubs and bars!!!
I find it ironic that non Muslims can corrupt the Islamic society with the permission of the Islamic government but Muslims can't.

Pork farms and alcohol weren't part of worship, and yet, the non-muslims there were allowed to keep them. I don't understand why bars would be different.

 

[maro]

Now you say all of Shariah must be voted on as a single package take it or leave it. Who enforces that rule? That's not democratic.

aha..so you vote for every individual law in your country ? is that what you are telling me ?

And how do you know that a majority of Muslims would vote to have state-enforced Shariah law? If they agreed with Tariq's views, they would not. You make it sound like you are certain that every Muslim, now and forever, will agree with your view that all of Shariah law should be imposed by the state. How can you know this unless you are psychic?

if the majority didn't agree to apply the islamic shariah..so it shouldn't be applied..isn't that what i have said ?

If it were put to a vote I wouldn't interfere with the democratic process.

promise ?

Then you do not support freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means the government can't censor people even if we despise what they say. (As long as they don't say things that could physically hurt people, e.g. shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.)

For the record, I have no desire to draw a cartoon of Muhammad any more than I want to draw a cartoon of Julius Caesar. But I feel I should be allowed to, if I wanted, because it's not against MY religion to draw Muhammad, that's only against YOUR religion, and it doesn't harm anyone or infringe on their rights.

aha..then how is denying the holocoust ,for example , physically hurt people ? i didn't hear you objecting to sending the holocoust deniers to prison in some democratic countries..

Also, by making "rudeness" illegal you have not made people genuinely courteous and polite, you have merely made impolite people put on a show of politeness which is insincere. Courtesy is much more convincing and gratifying when the person has a free choice to act that way.

if people are not mature enough to respect each other and co exist peacefully..so ,yes..they should forcibly learn to do act as civilized adults....imagine if muslims started drawing rude cartoons to make fun of the hindus in india..and the indian hindus started drawing cartoons of prophet muhammad (PBUH)...what do you expect to happen in india..civil war ?..may be..

Notice that I've been criticizing Islam decently and objectively all along (trying anyway), even though there is no law forcing me to do so.

Even in this forum ,which is suppoded to be a virtual community not a real one, has laws..even here ,there is no abslout freedom of speech...otherwise ,members aren't going to be banned every now and then...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So can a member of an Islamic political party get nominated to the presidency and if he got elected, can he change the political system of the country from secular democratic to Islamic?

That would be legal, yes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Can a muslim like me be the judge on the morality of stuff presented in the american T.V and cinema of the U.S ?

Yes, every adult can judge a TV program and can choose to watch it or turn it off. Now will you please answer my question: 1) What you consider to be "pornography" may be inspiring art or literature or cinema to others. [In an Islamic state] Who gets to judge? Can an atheist like me be the judge?

the mature adults can do whatever they like in private..certainly the government is not going to spy on them ..and the police is not going to enter their bedrooms...as long as they are not allowing four eye witneses to testify on them..it's their own business

Imagine if some gay people told you, oh you can have sex with your husband / wife, but if there are four eyewitnesses you will be killed. You would still be worried, even if you were always careful to have sex with your husband in private, and you would both be paranoid, and occasionally people would get caught in rare circumstances, and they would be killed. So realistically, there must occasionally be cases where the law is enforced, or the law would be irrelevant to have in the first place.

It wouldn't really be the individual's own business, because the threat of death would always hang over them and occasionally gay men and straight men and women would get caught. Everyone would know if two men seemed to be gay partners, that they were probably having sex, a crime punishable by death. Anyone who hated them enough might try to catch them in the act through some clever means, so they can get them killed or so they can blackmail them.

As for sodomy , and after the availability of four eye witnesses ,it's punishable by death..as for producing pornography..i don't know

Death. For having sex the wrong way with another consenting adult. That is not just or merciful, that is cruel and barbaric.

and who told you that we are qualified to fully understand the divine justice...we may still do our best ,though

The problem is that you could use that argument as an excuse to justify anything at all, no matter how unreasonable or unjust, by simply claiming that it's divine and that we don't understand it. Hindus, Christians, Jews, and many other religious people do that all the time to justify claims that cannot be justified to the rest of us.

first ,i accepted this religion to be divine ...and consequently i accepted all its rulings to be perfect and wise...and not vice versa...
so yes, i have a pre-assumption that every ruling is perfectly wise

Well, I am disputing that assumption. Many of the rulings are wise but not perfectly wise, and some of them are downright cruel.

Thanks for the link
the quran doesn't deny it might have some benefits , however it says that the harm is much more evident ,not4me has already posted the verse

But there is no harm associated with moderate drinking. Moderate drinking is healthy.

it's not then neutral..

I agree it's not *completely* neutral. Are you suggesting God *does* intervene in politics?

what are the gurantees you keep talking about ? if the majority say something ,in a democratic system ,that doesn't appeal to you...what ia your authority to stop them ?

The U.S. Constitution gaurantees freedom of expression, religion, privacy, etc. If a law is passed that violates the Constitution, there can be lawsuits and a judge can rule that the law is unconstitutional, and therefore the law is void. So really the only way to pass a law that restricts free expression is to change the Constitution, which would have to be ratified by an *overwhelming* majority of two-thirds of the states, not a simple (51%) majority. So the Constitution can be changed, which is a good thing, but it takes an overwhelming majority, so it can't be a rash decision by a momentary majority, and that's also a good thing.

It also isn't simply a two-thirds majority of the people, but a two-thirds majority of the *states*. So a state with a small population has as much a voice as a state with a large population. The idea is that this acts as a buffer against a tyrannical majority of people from a few well-populated states oppressing and controlling the sparsely-populated states.

Also, although the Consitution is changed occasionally, most people don't want to specifically remove the gaurantee of rights from the Constitution, because by removing those gaurantees for others you remove them for yourself as well.

An Islamic state, on the other hand, would lack these constitutional gaurantees and thus oppression would be inherent.

nope..nor jesus..nor moses..nor buddha...

Then that's not free speech.

have you read the quran ?

I have only read Surah 2 and sections here and there from the rest of it. Please tell me where it specifically talks about the ethics of genetic engineering.

i have watched the programm again on the youtube,but i couldn't figure out what was hindering the law in the first place

Well, you said that she got her PhD in studying how Islamic law is compatible with organ transplants, so presumably people initially opposed the organ transplants because they thought it contradicted Islamic law.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

aha..so you vote for every individual law in your country ? is that what you are telling me ?

I vote for local laws, yes, but of course I don't vote for every law in the country, if I did I would hardly have time for anything else in my life. I simply vote for representatives every few years, and they vote on state and national laws, and then I might vote against them when they run for re-election based on how they voted and how the laws have affected me.

Now please answer my very straightforward question: you say all of Shariah must be voted on as a single package take it or leave it. Who enforces that rule? That's not democratic.

if the majority didn't agree to apply the islamic shariah..so it shouldn't be applied..isn't that what i have said ?

Yes, but you also said to not4me, in post #68: i wanted to make him understand that even if we made every single ruling up to voting...the net result is that the islamic Majority will end up applying the shariah

But, as I pointed out, an Islamic majority would not necessarily end up applying the Shariah. It would have to be a majority of Muslims AND they would have to accept *your* views on Shariah. For example, the American Muslims of the Free Muslim Coalition strongly support secular democracy and oppose Shariah: Issues: Free Muslims Coalition .

promise ?

Yes, I promise. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

aha..then how is denying the holocoust ,for example , physically hurt people ? i didn't hear you objecting to sending the holocoust deniers to prison in some democratic countries..

It doesn't physically hurt people, and I DO object to sending holocaust deniers to prison. I even pointed out the hypocrisy during the Muhammad cartoons controversy: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/political-debates/27244-cartoons-under-fire.html#post337894

if people are not mature enough to respect each other and co exist peacefully..so ,yes..they should forcibly learn to do act as civilized adults....imagine if muslims started drawing rude cartoons to make fun of the hindus in india..and the indian hindus started drawing cartoons of prophet muhammad (PBUH)...what do you expect to happen in india..civil war ?..may be..

You can't force people to be civilized adults, they have to learn it through social interactions. I agree that as a practical matter, it would be better not to draw cartoons than to have a civil war. But fundamentally, the reason the situation like the one in India between the Muslims and Hindus is constantly on the verge of civil war, is because people have these primitive, backward beliefs that the harmless actions of an individual from another group (like drawing a cartoon, insulting their religion, etc.) justify bloody violence. People aren't forced to "act as civilized adults" in the West and yet they won't burn down the Egyptian embassy any time some Egyptians spew hatred towards the West, or Jews.

It would be like if I held a gun to you and said "Don't make me mad, or you might make me pull the trigger". Obviously, you shouldn't make me mad in that situation. But more importantly, I should put the gun down! Similarly, the most important thing is for Muslims, Hindus, and everyone to stop thinking that everyone is obliged to revere exactly what they revere, and to stop getting so violently hysterical about harmless things, like cartoons.

Even in this forum ,which is suppoded to be a virtual community not a real one, has laws..even here ,there is no abslout freedom of speech...otherwise ,members aren't going to be banned every now and then...

Very true. But there is an enormous difference between legal restrictions on free speech, and rules that we are asked to follow when we are on another person's property, or when we are using a free service others provide to us (e.g. this website). If we break the rules, the worst that can happen is the owners force us to leave their property, which is their right, we can't be thrown in jail. If we don't like the rules, we are free to go to another website, or create our own website with our own rules. We can stand on the sidewalk and talk to anyone who will listen, hand out flyers, etc.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By the way, not4me and maro, why do you keep bringing up the laws of the U.S.? I do not think the U.S. is perfect, in fact there are a lot of things wrong with US laws and how they are enforced. But this has no bearing on the issue of Islamic law and its state implementation. Even if the U.S. was the most barbaric, cruel, undemocratic nation on Earth, it would not tell us anything about the justice or wisdom of Islamic law.

 

[TashaN]

Sorry for being late. I was busy a bit lately.

TashaN - Thanks for your well-reasoned and informative reply.

I keep obsessing about it too! I'm supposed to be a physicist for goodness' sake.

You are most welcome.

If she was really a woman, she'd agree. (Haha, just kidding.) But in all seriousness, someone must have considered it a possibility or there wouldn't be an Islamic law against it in the first place.

I agree.

And how can you say it would be an injustice to the man, if the man himself wants to marry the girl and does not think it would be an injustice? Perhaps they will decide to raise the children Muslim, perhaps they will raise them in a different religion, or perhaps they will educate the children broadly and let them decide for themselves. I know many mixed couples in the U.S. where one is Jewish, one is Christian, or one is non-religious. They love each other and they have a great family with kids. It would seem cruel to me to prohibit these people from marrying.

I'm aware of that as well, but it's well known for any muslim woman that as a muslim, she is not allowed to marry a non-muslim, although i heard it occured in some places like Bosnia, etc.

That's an excellent question, but in my opinion if one is not protected free expression, than neither is the other. If I say "George W. Bush is incompetent" am I insulting him just for the sake of insulting or is it a thought and idea which goes against the Republican party? I might think it's a thought or idea, but Republicans will generally deem it an insult, especially if they are the one's in power to judge.

There is nothing wrong with the statement above. Alot of non-muslims were debating crtain topics like God, Mohammed, and Islam in general with the muslim scholars and i didn't read anywhere that they weren't allowed to do so.

But let's consider the insult: if someone levels an insult at the Prophet Muhammad in an Islamic state, what happens to them? What if they level insult after insult, for as long as they live?

They are not allowed to do so. What would you do if he insulted your father or mother?

Wow, really? An atheist president of an Islamic state? I wouldn't have guessed that would be allowed.

If the Muslims elected him, why not?

Hehe, I guess I'll have to have two glasses of wine then, for both of us. I can offer you some mixed green salad which I also made, with dried fruit and nuts, red peppers and balsamic vinaigrette, with milk or apple juice to drink.

Oh, I do not have much difficulty believing that Islamic law was advanced for that time period. Thanks for the info.

Welcome.

Even an atheist like myself?

Yes.

I agree that the judge in that story demonstrates a remarkable degree of justice for that time period. But I'm certain similar displays of justice and fair-mindedness often occurred in places like Athens or Rome over a thousand years before your example. Look at Classical Roman law. Law during that time was an advanced science, and they developed structures of government that have become universal in all modern governments. Their rulers were certainly subject to the law as in your example, as they could be impeached, they had term limits, and regular elections (thanks, wiki: Roman law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). The idea that any party, even a governing official, must present evidence in court goes back at least to classical Rome.

That's really interesting. Can you please direct me to the part where they mention that the highest authority in the country--Caeser, Empror, etc--can be treated like any simple man from another religion, or at least, can be treated equally when standing against a simple poor Roman man?

Once again, I'm surprised. Did I mention gay bars?

You can see my conversation with not4me lately about this.

What sort of content in their work would lead to legal ramifications, and what would those ramifications consist of?

I can't answer this because i didn't read about it before within the context of Shariah law. Maybe others will be able to do so, if they didn't do so already.

So, maro asked me: i don't know which part of my post gives you the impression of imposing our beliefs on the non muslim minority ? It looks like we have an answer.

Cool.

I'm skeptical. Restricting free expression, adopting a sort of constitution that can never be amended (the Qu'ran, etc.), treating Muslims and non-Muslims differently as a matter of state business, and so on, only seems revolutionary to me in a retrograde sense. And we didn't even get into what a putative Islamic state does with apostates and homosexuals.

I believe it was the best solution for humanity as a whole at that time, but we can't apply ALL what they have done today, because the circumstances are different and we are not in a continous state of war and occupation like what was happening in the past.

Now, this, to me, is revolutionary in the progressive sense, and we don't have to struggle to reconcile it with ancient texts, it simply stands on its own: Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The beautiful thing to me about this is that any thinking, compassionate person can accept it, even if they all disagree about which holy book is the true one, or what God's will really is.

Shariah law is realstic, unlike the UDHR which is not being practiced 100% anywhere in this world as far as i know. That's why we have something less than that but all of it can be applied easily if a true islamic government was in effect, not just one which use the name of Islam like what is happening today in many so called islamic countries.

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TashaN]

By the way, not4me and maro, why do you keep bringing up the laws of the U.S.? I do not think the U.S. is perfect, in fact there are a lot of things wrong with US laws and how they are enforced. But this has no bearing on the issue of Islamic law and its state implementation. Even if the U.S. was the most barbaric, cruel, undemocratic nation on Earth, it would not tell us anything about the justice or wisdom of Islamic law.

I agree. We have something better to be proud of. Any simple man can see that the laws in the US are full of holes and only powerless poor people will suffer the consequences and nothing will happen to the super rich people who control guns, drugs, political parties, religious movements, lobbies, etc.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm aware of that as well, but it's well known for any muslim woman that as a muslim, she is not allowed to marry a non-muslim, although i heard it occured in some places like Bosnia, etc.

Have you considered that this might be a cruel and unfair practice? Unfair, because women and men are treated unequally. Cruel, because it prohibits two people who love each other from getting married.
This seems to be a case where a non-Muslim man married a Muslim woman (and 3 years later he converted to Islam): Islam: non muslim man married to muslim woman, converts. is nikaah required, muslim brother, muslim girl
Here is an example of a non-Muslim man dating a Muslim girl in London, and a violent attack on him: Man set on fire in East London | london life | thelondonpaper
Marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men seems to be quite common in Morocco as well: from AKI - Adnkronos international Morocco: Women must not marry non-Muslim European men, says imam

An imam in Morocco's eastern city of Fez has said that marriages between Moroccan women and European men who are not Muslims are forbidden under Islam.
Each summer in Morocco, a growing number of local women are reportedly marrying young European men.
"This kind of marriage, between Moroccan women and European men, is forbidden by the Koran (the Muslim holy book) and the Sunna (the way or deeds of the Prophet Mohammed)," Sheikh Mohammed al-Tawil said in a TV interview.
...
Each summer in Morocco, a growing number of local women are marrying young European men. Al-Tawil's position however contravenes the 2005 reforms of Moroccan family law (known as the Mudawana).
These reforms gave women greater freedom to choose their husbands and made it easier for a foreigner to marry a Moroccan woman.
Almost 6,000 such marriages were registered in Morocco in 2007, almost all of them in the summer - an almost six-fold increase over the previous decade.​

A Muslim father in a Western country complains that his daughter has married a non-Muslim man: http://infad.usim.edu.my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=8783
Muslims on a forum saying they have seen Muslim women marry non-Muslim men: About Marrying A non-Muslim Husband..

Also, I met a female Muslim student a while ago (I wouldn't have known that she was Muslim, but it came up in conversation) and she seems to be dating this guy who I don't think is Muslim. Tonight I saw them go into his dorm room together.

If I say "George W. Bush is incompetent" am I insulting him just for the sake of insulting or is it a thought and idea

There is nothing wrong with the statement above.

We agree on something.

Alot of non-muslims were debating crtain topics like God, Mohammed, and Islam in general with the muslim scholars and i didn't read anywhere that they weren't allowed to do so.

I see.

They are not allowed to do so. What would you do if he insulted your father or mother?

I would be offended, and use the usual measures of (non-violent) social interaction to address the behavior: I might protest, or ignore him, or warn other people about him. Or I might consider what I had done to provoke the insult, and apologize if I was in the wrong. Whatever I would do, it wouldn't be long before I forget about it and go on with life. Words can't hurt me, unless they are harsh words from a close friend or relative. The ordinary, free social interactions between individuals and groups are much better at resolving these conflicts than the state, in my opinion.

It's worth noting that I cannot remember any instance when anyone insulted my father or mother, despite the fact that it is perfectly legal to do so in this country.

Basically, I agree with John Stuart Mill's philosophy as explained in IV. Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual. Mill, John Stuart. 1869. On Liberty Here's a great explanation (I hope you can understand the 19th - century vocabulary alright):

Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter. They should be for ever stimulating each other to increased exercise of their higher faculties, and increased direction of their feelings and aims towards wise instead of foolish, elevating instead of degrading, objects and contemplations. But neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. He is the person most interested in his own well-being: the interest which any other person, except in cases of strong personal attachment, can have in it, is trifling, compared with that which he himself has; the interest which society has in him individually (except as to his conduct to others) is fractional, and altogether indirect: while, with respect to his own feelings and circumstances, the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else. The interference of society to overrule his judgment and purposes in what only regards himself, must be grounded on general presumptions; which may be altogether wrong, and even if right, are as likely as not to be misapplied to individual cases, by persons no better acquainted with the circumstances of such cases than those are who look at them merely from without. In this department, therefore, of human affairs, Individuality has its proper field of action. In the conduct of human beings towards one another, it is necessary that general rules should for the most part be observed, in order that people may know what they have to expect; but in each person's own concerns, his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise. Considerations to aid his judgment, exhortations to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others; but he himself is the final judge. All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good.

If the Muslims elected him, why not?

From the wiki article you cited on the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights: The right to hold public office can only be exercised in accordance with the Sharia,[3] which forbids muslims to submit to the rule of non-muslims.

That's really interesting. Can you please direct me to the part where they mention that the highest authority in the country--Caeser, Empror, etc--can be treated like any simple man from another religion, or at least, can be treated equally when standing against a simple poor Roman man?

According to Roman law -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia , during the pre-Classical period when Rome was still a Republic, the law was indeed binding on all citizens:

There were various types of written law, the first of which consisted of leges (singular lex), or enactments of one of the assemblies of the whole Roman people. Although the wealthier classes, or patricians, dominated these assemblies, the common people, or plebeians, had their own council in which they enacted resolutions called plebiscita. Only after the passage of the Lex Hortensia in 287 bc, however, did plebiscita become binding on all classes of citizens; thereafter, plebiscita were generally termed leges along with other enactments.​

Shariah law is realstic, unlike the UDHR which is not being practiced 100% anywhere in this world as far as i know. That's why we have something less than that but all of it can be applied easily if a true islamic government was in effect, not just one which use the name of Islam like what is happening today in many so called islamic countries.

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But great progress has been made towards implementing the UDHR around the world. In fact most of the UDHR -- not 100% but the vast majority of it -- is already being practiced in many parts of the world, and those practices would have to be abandoned if those countries adopted Shariah law. This would not be progress.

 

[maro]

Yes, every adult can judge a TV program and can choose to watch it or turn it off.

lol..this is not what i meant...i meant : can i be the head of the censorship board..you do have censorship...don't you ?

But there is no harm associated with moderate drinking. Moderate drinking is healthy.

Allah knows best

I agree it's not *completely* neutral. Are you suggesting God *does* intervene in politics?

I do

An Islamic state, on the other hand, would lack these constitutional gaurantees and thus oppression would be inherent.

actually the constitutional gaurantees are much more in the islamic state..if 2/3 majority can simply change the constitution to rob others of their rights in your democratic country....
in the islaic state , a 100% majority can't touch any of the rights of the non muslim minorities ,prisoners and captives..becauses they are god given...!!..and no psycho so called conservatives can argue about the god given rights...

I have only read Surah 2 and sections here and there from the rest of it. Please tell me where it specifically talks about the ethics of genetic engineering.

it doesn't...

Well, you said that she got her PhD in studying how Islamic law is compatible with organ transplants, so presumably people initially opposed the organ transplants because they thought it contradicted Islamic law.

may be...anyway , i am glad she proved them wrong..