Discussion: Islamic teachings by Dr. Badawi (Canada)

[.lava]

holocaust deniers go to prison?! where? since when?


.

 

[maro]

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.

when somone go vote for the shariah...he is aware that he is voting for : law 1 + law2 + law 3...and if the majority think that (law 1+2+3) are good...then we should apply (law 1+2 + 3)....
if you still think this is not democratic..so be it

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 .

they shouldn't vote for it then...so simple

You can't force people to be civilized adults, they have to learn it through social interactions.

oh yes i can...we do it all the time..we force people not to steal ,not to cheat...we don't wait for them to learn

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.

ummm..so you are saying that the americans are civilized by nature ,while the indians are primitive and backward ?..This ia plain arrogance...India is a very ancient civilization , much older than your infantile country that rob the land by eradicating millions of people...and honestly after what happened in iraq , i bet you guys should stop thinking you are superior to others...BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT

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.

so we agree that there are legal restrictions on free speech ,then....
similar to the forum , if you don't like the rules in an islamic country....if you felt irresistable motive to draw cartoons of the prophets and ridicule othe religions ,you are free to leave...find another secular country that will not only accept you ,but will make a hero out of you just for insulting muslims and their prophet..

 

[YmirGF]

Maro, forgive me for intruding on your conversation with Mr. Spinkles, but I have some comments and questions of my own.

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

I think this is a somewhat simplistic overview. Is it truly reasonable that such a revolutionary change to a given society be held to the 50% + 1 rule? One point being that once Sharia Law is instituted it is very difficult to remove due to the fact that opposition is effectively silenced and eliminated by a variety of means.

Also, many provisions of Sharia law are in contravention of accepted basic human rights. Is it reasonable to reject those entrenched human rights because 50% +1 thought Sharia offered a better model for society? It sounds less like a lesson in democracy than it would be a distinct recipie for civil war. In essence, Muslims would be using democracy against itself. Based on the countries currently on Earth that have various forms of Sharia Law, should the 50% - 1 simply hope that the 50% +1 manages to break the mold and "get it right"? In my view, that is expecting a lot.

if people are not mature enough to respect each other and coexist peacefully..so ,yes..they should forcibly learn to do act as civilized adults.

One catches more flies with honey than one does with vinegar. Examine in your mind the concept of forcing people to be respectful. That doesn't conjure a very pretty picture.

imagine if muslims started drawing rude cartoons to make fun of the hindus in india.

Considering the horrific cartoons depicting Jews in the Arab press, I'd suggest we don't actually have to imagine anything here.

and the indian hindus started drawing cartoons of prophet muhammad (PBUH)...what do you expect to happen in india..civil war ?..may be..

To be perfectly honest, Maro, only a pack of dimwits would get themselves in a lather over simple cartoons. There is no nice way to put it actually. In your mind, do mere cartoons serve as justification for violent reactions?

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

Political correctness does enough to limit real freedom to speak what is on ones mind. In my view, there is a vast difference between taking heat for some comments and having limitations on speech enshrined into law. Thank goodness that the real world does not operate under the rules here on RF.

 

[YmirGF]

when somone go vote for the shariah...he is aware that he is voting for : law 1 + law2 + law 3...and if the majority think that (law 1+2+3) are good...then we should apply (law 1+2 + 3).... if you still think this is not democratic..so be it
they shouldn't vote for it then...so simple

What you may not understand, Maro, is that in Canada, at least (and I assume in many "western" countries) the individual cannot agree to waive their basic human rights as those are enshrined in our Charters and constitutions. Adopting Sharia law in these countries would probably not survive a Charter or Constitional challenge in the courts because Sharia Law goes against the established codes of rights and freedoms. In theory, unless the Bill of Rights or in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (in Canada) were changed it would not be possible to have a simple vote on the adoption of Sharia Law, regardless if a slim majority wanted Sharia Law or not. Fortunately this is not likely to occur in my lifetime. I admit, I could be wrong on this, but I am pretty sure what I am saying is accurate.

oh yes i can...we do it all the time..we force people not to steal ,not to cheat...we don't wait for them to learn

Are you serious? We do NOT force people not to steal or not to cheat. We catch up to them after the fact and deal with them then, but frankly, some people never learn. Besides how do you FORCE someone NOT to steal? The very idea is strange to me.

ummm..so you are saying that the americans are civilized by nature ,while the indians are primitive and backward ?..This ia plain arrogance.

No, not all Indians, but most obviously some Indians are extremely narrow-minded and arguably primitive.

India is a very ancient civilization, much older than your infantile country that rob the land by eradicating millions of people.

Thinks of Muslim conquests during its expansion... Hmmm... Kettle meet Mrs. Pot.

and honestly after what happened in iraq, i bet you guys should stop thinking you are superior to others. BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT

Hmmm... this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the link between political will and military performance. Aside from this, it was not the wisest move to go into Iraq in the first place. America should have waited and saved her political capital for Iran, imho.

so we agree that there are legal restrictions on free speech ,then... similar to the forum, if you don't like the rules in an islamic country... if you felt irresistable motive to draw cartoons of the prophets and ridicule other religions, you are free to leave... find another secular country that will not only accept you, but will make a hero out of you just for insulting muslims and their prophet..

By the same token then, "Western" countries should be allowed to send Muslims packing for wanting to institute Sharia Law in their adopted countries. You might want to think long and hard about the ramifications of what you are saying here, Maro.

 

[maro]

One point being that once Sharia Law is instituted it is very difficult to remove due to the fact that opposition is effectively silenced and eliminated by a variety of means.

is that assumption based on what your media tells about Iran ?..if that is the case..i don't like Iran...and i don't like your media either

Also, many provisions of Sharia law are in contravention of accepted basic human rights. Is it reasonable to reject those entrenched human rights because 50% +1 thought Sharia offered a better model for society? It sounds less like a lesson in democracy than it would be a distinct recipie for civil war. In essence, Muslims would be using democracy against itself. Based on the countries currently on Earth that have various forms of Sharia Law, should the 50% - 1 simply hope that the 50% +1 manages to break the mold and "get it right"? In my view, that is expecting a lot.

you say "accepted "..accepted by who ?...by the western culture i guess..are you trying to impose your western view on muslims ? ..if you don't want muslims to impose their morality and shariah on you ..don't impose your *morality * and secularism on them..ok ?
and btw , the 51% -49% was just a theoritical example for clariifcation..while in reality , muslims have their own countries and secularists have their own countries...if both parties can just mind their own business...every thing wilh be just fine
and just and advice..after saying that the french were the wisest of all for banning the hijab..and after supporting sending the holcoust deniers to prison..you better find someone else to lecture me on human rights...so that i might take him seriously

Examine in your mind the concept of forcing people to be respectful. That doesn't conjure a very pretty picture.

let's not say forcing..let's say "punishing "...it's true that punishment may not always force people to act as civilized individuals..but at least it's a detering tool

Considering the horrific cartoons depicting Jews in the Arab press, I'd suggest we don't actually have to imagine anything here.

lol..you made me laugh..what cartoons in the arabic press ?...the arabic press-generally speaking- is in the fest of some fellow secularists of yours who love israel more than they love their sons...

In your mind, do mere cartoons serve as justification for violent reactions?

no..certainly not a justification...if a rapid dog barked at me ,using violence with it is certainly not justified

Political correctness does enough to limit real freedom to speak what is on ones mind. In my view, there is a vast difference between taking heat for some comments and having limitations on speech enshrined into law. Thank goodness that the real world does not operate under the rules here on RF.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed ,religious debates are encouraged....hate speech and making fun of the religious symbols is not....like it or not....

 

[maro]

What you may not understand, Maro, is that in Canada, at least (and I assume in many "western" countries) the individual cannot agree to waive their basic human rights as those are enshrined in our Charters and constitutions. Adopting Sharia law in these countries would probably not survive a Charter or Constitional challenge in the courts because Sharia Law goes against the established codes of rights and freedoms. In theory, unless the Bill of Rights or in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (in Canada) were changed it would not be possible to have a simple vote on the adoption of Sharia Law, regardless if a slim majority wanted Sharia Law or not. Fortunately this is not likely to occur in my lifetime. I admit, I could be wrong on this, but I am pretty sure what I am saying is accurate.

and who told you that anyone wants to apply the shariah in canada...i was thinking of egypt ,if you don't mind...do you ?

Thinks of Muslim conquests during its expansion... Hmmm... Kettle meet Mrs. Pot.

i don't need you to teach me about the muslim conquest ,dude...i am an egyptian..and i know pretty much about it...

By the same token then, "Western" countries should be allowed to send Muslims packing for wanting to institute Sharia Law in their adopted countries. You might want to think long and hard about the ramifications of what you are saying here, Maro.

muslims want to institute the shariah in their own countries..not in the western countries...now, what was you saying above ? :sarcastic

 

[Sahar]

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.

He he he...you're so funny but what are you trying to prove here?
BTW, Muslim men are not allowed to marry non Muslim women except women of the people of the book. A Muslim man can't marry an atheist woman for instance.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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 ?

You did not answer my question a second time: 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?

Now, to answer your question: it is illegal in the U.S. to exclude anyone from public office based on gender, race, religion, etc. and it is illegal to deny anyone equal access to public services and facilities.

There is no "censorship board" but censorship does still occasionally rear its ugly head in subtle forms in the U.S., and I oppose this (except in extreme circumstances, for example if someone wants to publish instructions on how to make an atomic bomb). You may be interested in this list of world nations, ranked in order of their freedom of press, by Reporters Without Borders: Reporters sans frontières - Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index - 2007

Anyway as I said before the fact that other legal systems (such as the U.S.) have flaws has no bearing on the issue of whether or not Islamic law is perfect. So the point you are trying to make, "Well the U.S. has censorship too", though perfectly valid in its own right, is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I am concerned about censorship in the U.S., but Shariah law would mean even greater censorship and less freedom of speech.

Now will you please answer my question?

Allah knows best

Then he must know that moderate drinking is healthy.

I do [think God intervenes in politics]

I am curious: do you believe furthermore that you are capable of knowing whether Allah has intervened or not at any given time, and how he has intervened? Or do you simply believe Allah intervenes in politics even though you never know when or how he intervenes?

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...

Of course in practice, any group with the desire and the power to oppress others will do so, whether they are in an Islamic state or a democratic state. To prevent such a group from forming, there must be human mechanisms in place to prevent it. We know as an historical fact that God does not prevent tyranny and oppression, or there would never have been so many oppressive regimes rising to power.

The problem is that if there is no mechanism by which a constitution can be updated or improved or reformed, then there can be little progress. We would not be able to make needed reforms, update outdated laws, or make vital additions as our knowledge and wisdom grows, and as circumstance necessitates. The inability to enact fundamental reform on ancient, outdated law is precisely the problem with an Islamic state. You say no one can dispute a god-given right, yet you endorse Shariah law which denies basic human rights which many believe to be god-given. So people can and do dispute god-given rights, you do so yourself.

Of course you are right that in a democracy, there is always the danger that a majority will decide to change the constitution and oppress the minority. There is no perfect solution to this problem. You can only make it less likely by requiring it to be an *overwhelming* majority, and a majority of *states* (not strict population), and by encouraging diversity and plurality so that each group cherishes their rights and freedoms too much to vote against them. Education is also important, because people must be understand that if they take rights away from others, they endanger their own rights as well. If you abandon your own freedoms, it is unlikely that your particular group will win the ensuing struggle for absolute domination, and even if it does it is only a matter of time before another group overthrows your own and takes its revenge on you.

Educated people are capable of understanding that is not the sort of society we want. That is probably why the trend in the U.S. has been for 200 years to offer more rights and more freedoms to more people, not the other way around. Every time the U.S. constitution has been amended, it was for the purpose of expanding rights and freedoms not restricting them. (There was a single exception nearly 100 years ago which was reversed after a short time.)

As far as I know, historically the more democratic a country is the more it will tend to embrace additional rights and freedoms, with only temporary setbacks. (1930's Germany is the main notable exception that comes to mind.... but I am no historian.... ) So I think your concern that a democratic, free people will spontanteously vote against their own rights and freedoms is not born out by what we see in history on the long term.

And nothing is solved by reverting to ancient (Islamic) law--which was written during a time of relative ignorance compared to what we know today--and declaring it perfect and unalterable for eternity. That would be a reversal of tremendous progress that has been made in the last few hundred years in many countries.

it [the Qu'ran] doesn't...[contain anything specific about bioethics]

Then in my opinion it is not a perfect guide to ethics and law. If an author today wrote a comprehensive book about ethics and law, but left out any mention of genetic engineering, stem cells, and other bioethics issues of great important, he would be heavily criticized for this glaring omission even if the rest of the book was terrific.

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

But it should not be necessary to get a PhD in Islamic law, or anything, to prove that organ transplants are acceptable, livesaving procedures. That conclusion only requires basic human compassion and reason. I feel this basic compassion and reason is ignored when people say "Allah knows best" instead of thinking about the issues based on their merits. If Allah knows best, then it must be a good thing that he created us with brains which are capable of making these basic judgments without any reference to any law, Islamic or otherwise.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

when somone go vote for the shariah...he is aware that he is voting for : law 1 + law2 + law 3...and if the majority think that (law 1+2+3) are good...then we should apply (law 1+2 + 3)....
if you still think this is not democratic..so be it

It would be undemocratic to say that they are not allowed to vote for law 1 but against law 2, if they wish. Or to propose law 3, but not 2 or 1, and then amend law 3 (as examples).

they shouldn't vote for it then...so simple

Agreed.

oh yes i can...we do it all the time..we force people not to steal ,not to cheat...we don't wait for them to learn

That's different. We don't prohibit stealing as a way of forcing people to be "civilized adults", we prohibit stealing to protect everyone's right to their own property. It's about protecting rights, not enforcing civilized behavior.

ummm..so you are saying that the americans are civilized by nature ,while the indians are primitive and backward ?

Of course I am not saying that! Americans have numerous primitive backward beliefs. We are only just emerging from a very ugly, racist past that threatens to return at any moment, it seems.

..This ia plain arrogance...India is a very ancient civilization , much older than your infantile country that rob the land by eradicating millions of people...and honestly after what happened in iraq , i bet you guys should stop thinking you are superior to others...BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT

I absolutely do NOT believe any human being is inherently superior to any other. I do believe that certain IDEAS are more primitive and dangerous than others. One of those ideas is the notion that if a person from religion A utters words which are deemed insufficiently reverent of a figure from religion B, then mobs of religion B are justified in massacring people of religion A indiscriminately. This is clearly a dangerous and primitive notion and I do not regret calling it so, and furthermore it is fundamentally THE problem. The offending words (or cartoons or whatever) are merely an excuse for the violence which inevitably results from such notions. People who are enraged to violence by trifling, harmless words or cartoons are sticks of dynamite waiting to go off, and they eventually will.

Why do you address me as "you guys"? I am an individual person, and I represent no one but myself. I am not the American ambassador for goodness' sake. Every time I make a criticism of Islamic law you respond by criticizing the U.S. rather than by defending Islamic law. I would be happy to discuss U.S. law and society with you on another thread. It's likely I will agree with many of your criticisms.

so we agree that there are legal restrictions on free speech ,then....

Those aren't legal restrictions on free speech. It is simply the right of a person who owns private property to choose who they accept onto their property. This website is the virtual "property" of the people who own and maintain it. If they create rules governing our speech *while on their property*, that is not a legal restriction of free speech; it is simply the free, social, give-and-take interaction of human beings.

 

[TashaN]

holocaust deniers go to prison?! where? since when?


.

In France and some other European countries. If you ever dare to even *question* how many people have died there, they would sue you, imprison you or fine you. Imagine what they would do if you denied it!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Educated people are capable of understanding that is not the sort of society we want. That is probably why the trend in the U.S. has been for 200 years to offer more rights and more freedoms to more people, not the other way around. Every time the U.S. constitution has been amended, it was for the purpose of expanding rights and freedoms not restricting them. (There was a single exception nearly 100 years ago which was reversed after a short time.)

It's interesting to note that the single amendment to the Constitution which restricted freedom was a prohibition on alcohol. After a short time, violent organized crime soared as a direct result of this prohibition, law enforcement was overwhelmed because everyone who was drinking before continued to drink, and the illicit unregulated alcohol was far more alcoholic and dangerous than it was when it was regulated. This prohibition was in fact *harmful* to individuals and society, and was therefore repealed a short time later.

Once again, it's interesting to note that the Prohibition amendment is the only case in which the Constitution was amended to *restrict* freedom, that it prohibited alcohol (as Shariah demands), and that it was a total disaster.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

He he he...you're so funny but what are you trying to prove here?

TashaN and maro claimed that no Muslim girl would marry a non-Muslim man, but I provided many examples which demonstrate that some Muslim girls, if they are given the freedom to do so, will choose to marry non-Muslim men. And who are you, and who am I, to tell them they can't?

BTW, Muslim men are not allowed to marry non Muslim women except women of the people of the book. A Muslim man can't marry an atheist woman for instance.

According to your beliefs, but not according to all Muslims. To cite one famous contemporary example, U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's father was Muslim and his mother was not a person of the book, and they were married.

 

[kai]

holocaust deniers go to prison?! where? since when?


.

Laws against Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Peace]

TashaN and maro claimed that no Muslim girl would marry a non-Muslim man, but I provided many examples which demonstrate that some Muslim girls, if they are given the freedom to do so, will choose to marry non-Muslim men. And who are you, and who am I, to tell them they can't?

According to your beliefs, but not according to all Muslims. To cite one famous contemporary example, U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's father was Muslim and his mother was not a person of the book, and they were married.

TashaN, maro and not4me are talking about true Muslim girls, Muslims who are sincere, practicing their religion and obeying their Creator. Quranic verses are very clear concerning marrying non-Muslims. Yes there are Muslim girls who are marrying non-Mulims but those Muslims are just Muslims by name, i.e they are not practicing their religion or following God's injunctions.

 

[.lava]

TashaN, maro and not4me are talking about true Muslim girls, Muslims who are sincere, practicing their religion and obeying their Creator. Quranic verses are very clear concerning marrying non-Muslims. Yes there are Muslim girls who are marrying non-Mulims but those Muslims are just Muslims by name, i.e they are not practicing their religion or following God's injunctions.

but people of the book includes Christians and Jews too, doesn't it?


.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

TashaN, maro and not4me are talking about true Muslim girls, Muslims who are sincere, practicing their religion and obeying their Creator. Quranic verses are very clear concerning marrying non-Muslims. Yes there are Muslim girls who are marrying non-Mulims but those Muslims are just Muslims by name, i.e they are not practicing their religion or following God's injunctions.

How can you say, categorically, that every single one of them is insincere and disobedient? Are you psychic? Have you peered into the minds of all of them? You are completely rejecting, for no reason at all, the possibility that they have a genuine, sincere difference of opinion with you, just as Sunnis and Shias and Sufis, and every Muslim in between, may have differences of opinion. Do you think all the other Muslim sects, besides your own, consist entirely of insincere hypocrites?

I'm going to ask the Muslim student I know what she thinks and judge for myself if she is sincere.

It seems very likely that these Muslims reject the idea that Muslims cannot marry non-Muslims, and they seem very sincere and articulate about it: Issues: Free Muslims Coalition

 

[Sahar]

It's interesting to note that the single amendment to the Constitution which restricted freedom was a prohibition on alcohol. After a short time, violent organized crime soared as a direct result of this prohibition, law enforcement was overwhelmed because everyone who was drinking before continued to drink, and the illicit unregulated alcohol was far more alcoholic and dangerous than it was when it was regulated. This prohibition was in fact *harmful* to individuals and society, and was therefore repealed a short time later.

Once again, it's interesting to note that the Prohibition amendment is the only case in which the Constitution was amended to *restrict* freedom, that it prohibited alcohol (as Shariah demands), and that it was a total disaster.

Imagine how it would be like if a decision of prohibition of Alcohol consumption was made right now in the UK or in the USA. Indeed, it was banned in the US and it failed. Frankly this leads me to admire Islam more. Many Muslims even in countries where drinking Alcohol is a part of the social life don't touch it. The difference is the Muslim avoids drinking Alcohol with faith and conviction. This is exactly how Islam raised the first Muslims. In the 13 years of Mecca, the revelation aimed mainly to refute the corrupted creeds and clarify the straight creed of monotheism with logic and reasoning. The revelation truly succeeded in sowing the seeds of Iman (faith) in the hearts of the first Muslims and after that the different social, economic and legal codes were prescribed. But also, the Islamic legislation was gradual as to change deep seated social and economic systems would not actually be possible if all the legislation was done at once. And thus the first Muslims responded and obeyed.

In a society where poems were written about wine, how suddenly you could tell them "No Khamr"!! Islam dealt with such issues with great wisdom that could bring forth its fruitful results. Prohibition of drinking khamr (wine, alcohol...etc.) was carried out gradually;
First:
"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

Second:
"O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying" An-Nisa': 43

The final and complete prohibition:
"O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allāh], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful." Al-Ma'ida: 90

Now Alcoholism is a problem in the Western world but it's not in the Islamic world. Again this makes me admire my religion more and more.

The above is from a previous thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/67974-quran-channel-4-a-6.html#post1221829
The complete prohibition of Alcohol took 16 years to be prescribed in the Qur'an...and it was never a disaster to the individuals or the society then but quite the opposite.
Most of nowadays Muslims don't need constitutional amendments to not drink Alcohol. Their faith is enough.

 

[Peace]

How can you say, categorically, that every single one of them is insincere and disobedient? Are you psychic? Have you peered into the minds of all of them? You are completely rejecting, for no reason at all, the possibility that they have a genuine, sincere difference of opinion with you, just as Sunnis and Shias and Sufis, and every Muslim in between, may have differences of opinion. Do you think all the other Muslim sects, besides your own, consist entirely of insincere hypocrites?

Allah knows best who is sincere and who is not. I have no right to judge people, but you should know that my religion Islam is a religion of submission, so we say "yes we hear and obey" to all the injuctions of God and His orders. When Allah tells Muslim women very clearly in His Book not to marry non-Muslims, so what is supposed of a Muslim believer who practice her religion is to say "we hear and obey". Dating in the first place even dating a Muslim is haram "forbidden" in Islam.
Haram (forbidden) and halal (permitted) are clear in Islam, and for this case no school or sect in Islam could authorize a Muslim woman to marry a non-muslim.

 

[opuntia]

Islam may have been a leading religion in the day Muhammad brought it forth; but I believe that Islam is no longer a leading religion and should not be utilized or implemented in other countries such as the United States.

We have freedom of religion for a purpose. If another religion were to arise just as Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad brought their issuances forth, then it could be in the United States because the probability of persecution may be the lowest. Every religion that has come out suffered some form of persecution by the surrounding populace.

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are centuries-old religions. Islam purports to have come forth as a response to Christian apostasy and Christianity is a response to the apostasy from the Law of Moses. But today, it is my belief that Islam is apostate due to its numerous interpretation of the Holy Qur-an, they cannot agree how the Scripture should be interpreted. Islam may have been once a superpower centuries ago; but today its prominence is not as pronounced, the West is pronounced, i.e. the United States. It is likely that giving its citizens a certain amount of religious freedom instead of outright suppression found in the former U.S.S.R., the United States will be permitted to thrive as a superpower--for certainly it is God who permits the nations to stand.

The U.S.S.R., as I said, was a repressive government and not likely to be under the protection of a Supreme Being. It is likely that those who oppose the West should give that aspect some thought instead of casting a broad net over everyone in the West.

Why is it that the Taliban was cast out of Afhanistan? They are too repressive even as the Soviets. Even though the Soviets operated under Communist principles, the Taliban operate under what I believe are misinterpretations of the Holy Qur-an. When Muhammad brought forth the Holy Qur-an, it was pure; but now who is pure enough to be given the authority to interpret that holy Scripture for all Muslims and not just for certain sects who have personal agendas to support? I mean for all Muslims. Does not "Umma" give us the idea of unifying all believers under Islam or am I under a misapprehension?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The above is from a previous thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/67974-quran-channel-4-a-6.html#post1221829
The complete prohibition of Alcohol took 16 years to be prescribed in the Qur'an...and it was never a disaster to the individuals or the society then but quite the opposite.
Most of nowadays Muslims don't need constitutional amendments to not drink Alcohol. Their faith is enough.

I readily accept that a given policy may have different consequences depending on the particular culture and historical period in which it is applied. This is not a problem for me to accept, because I am not claiming to possess a perfect book of legal guidelines and policies for all cultures, for all time. Rather, the burden of evidence rests on the Islamist who claims that Islamic law always works perfectly well not only thousands of years ago, but in the modern era, in all cultures and circumstances. The fact that early 20th century alcohol prohibition in the U.S. was a disaster seems to me to be one piece of evidence suggesting otherwise.

First:
"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
"O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying" An-Nisa': 43
The final and complete prohibition:
"O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allāh], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful." Al-Ma'ida: 90

not4me, thank you very much for posting these relevant verses. If anything, these verses strike me for their great imperfection in communicating wisdom to us on these issues. For example, there is no precise definition of "intoxicants". In light of modern biochemistry, we know that many things we eat have intoxicating effects, including chocolate, tea, coffee, tobacco, and of course many medicines. The degree to which the things we eat and drink affect our behavior is a gray scale that depends on context, there is no black-and-white line between "intoxicated" and "not intoxicated". A high quality modern book about these issues would use precise terms such as "alcohol" and "Blood Alcohol Content", "risk factors vs. benefits", rather than outdated, cultural-specific terms such as "wine", "intoxicants", and "defilement from the work of Satan". The last three terms serve to cloud, not clarify, our rational thinking on this issue.

Furthermore, it does not address any real, established, modern facts on the issue. Again, there is *zero* harm with moderate drinking. Moderate drinkers live longer than people who do not drink. The same is true of sugars and fats. Eating excessive sugar increases the risk of obesity which is very harmful; some people are even sugar addicts. On the other hand, we are healthier if we eat sugars in moderation than if we neglect them entirely. It would be strange to think of a state prohibition on candy. Why are such critical facts omitted from the verses you quoted? To me it seems clear: those verses were authored by people hudreds of years ago, and those people did not have the benefit of the enormous knowledge we have accumulated in the past 1,300 years.

Surely the authors cannot be blamed for not knowing what we know today. Nevertheless, no book can be considered to have perfect, indisputable wisdom about any topic when it has such glaring omissions. There are better sources of wisdom on this issue.

Compare the verses you quoted to the following considerations on alcohol prohibition which can be found at an online encyclopedia:

The most direct effects of prohibitions are on the supply and demand for the prohibited commodity.4 Prohibitions raise supply costs because black market suppliers face legal punishments for manufacturing, distributing, and selling. Conditional on operating in secret, however, black market suppliers face low marginal costs of evading government regulations and taxes (Miron 2001), which provides a partial offset to the increased costs due to prohibition.5 Prohibitions reduce demand by creating legal penalties for possession and by increasing uncertainty about product quality.6 Prohibitions also reduce demand if consumers exhibit "respect for the law." At the same time, prohibitions can increase demand through a "forbidden fruit" effect, meaning a tendency for consumers to desire that which has been forbidden to them. Thus, the effect of prohibitions on price and even quantity are ambiguous a priori and must be determined empirically.

In addition to affecting price and quantity, prohibitions potentially increase violent and non-violent crime. Participants in an illegal trade cannot use the legal and judicial system to resolve disputes, so they seek other methods such as violence. Enforcement of prohibitions means reduced resources for enforcement of non-prohibition laws, which implies reduced deterrence of crime generally. Prohibitions can increase income-generating crime, such as theft or prostitution, by raising prices if consumers finance consumption of the prohibited commodity from such crime. And prohibitions give black market suppliers an incentive to corrupt law enforcement officials and politicians. Despite these tendencies to increase crime, the net effect of prohibitions on crime can be negative if prohibitions discourage consumption of the prohibited good and if such consumption encourages criminal activity. Thus, the net effect of prohibitions on crime can only be determined empirically.

Two other effects of prohibitions are the effects on overdoses and accidental poisonings. Because suppliers in a prohibited market must hide their activities from the authorities, they have a strong incentive to produce and ship the good in the most concentrated and hence most easily concealed form (Thornton 1998). This implies that prohibitions help make the potent forms of a good more readily available or even help create more potent forms of a prohibited substance. By itself this effect does not necessarily change the manner in which consumption takes place; consumers can potentially redilute the commodity in question to achieve their desired degree of potency. But in practice such redilution is imperfect, suggesting increased overdoses under prohibitions.7


Consumers in a prohibited market cannot sue the manufacturers of faulty goods or complain to government agencies without incriminating themselves. In addition, the costs of advertising are high in a prohibited market, so producers cannot easily develop a reputation for quality in order to generate repeat business. Thus, uncertainty about quality is likely to be greater in a prohibited market. Combined with the greater existence of high potency products, this further suggests the possibility of increased overdoses, as well as accidental poisonings, under prohibition.8
​

EH.Net Encyclopedia: Alcohol Prohibition

I spent about five minutes finding that analysis. I assume many better analyses could be found. If you go to the website, you can even see empirical data, charts and graphs.

It is by no means a perfect, unalterable or eternal analysis, nor does it claim to be. Yet any fair observer must conclude that it is vastly superior to the verses you offered from Islamic law on the issue, at least in terms of intellectual rigor, clarity, and use of modern facts.