Why do you dislike Islam?

[columbus]

@sayak83 you gone strangely quiet...

18 whole minutes!
What a loser. He has a life besides RF.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

It is really not a lousy excuse because you have to prove that these governments are actually basing their laws off Shari'ah Law.

Common but serious mistake right there. I do not have to do that, because it is irrelevant.

Instead, I have to establish to our mutual satisfaction that, unattainable ideals apart, the reality of having communities and even whole countries pursuing the practice of Islaam is consistently disastrous and not beneficial.

Could we truly claim that Islaam is worthy if its implementations consistently show otherwise?

(I don't think Shariah is very commendable even in the abstract, personally, but again, that is not relevant when analysing a real situation).

 

[Mohsen]

18 whole minutes!
What a loser. He has a life besides RF.
Tom

18 minutes too late then? didn't take a minute for him to reply when he wanted an answer from me, yet when I present the table turning - whoosh.

Nice ad hominem, noted for your inability to actually be tactful, what are you? barbaric? or just barbara?

 

[YmirGF]

It is and the funny part is Shari'ah Law only applies to Muslims, not Christians, nor Jews, nor anyone else. But because of the media and the fear based on the fanaticism of the late Osama Bin Laden and his ilk, Christian conservatives have spoon fed the public into thinking Muslims will rule the world and apply Shari'ah to everyone. Like I told another poster Shari'ah Law is a complex legal system that is not easily understood. Hell, I wouldn't even know where to begin. People don't understand that Shari'ah Law is not just about punishment but how one conducts themselves in public. I think Shari'ah Law tends to have some similarity with Halakha (Hebrew Law).

I know. Having looked into the topic, well, ever since 9/11/01 I do know that it is much, much more complex that many imagine.

 

[columbus]

e ad hominem, noted for your inability to actually be tactful, what are you? barbaric? or just barbara?

How religious of you.

Tom

 

[Mohsen]

(I don't think Shariah is very commendable even in the abstract, personally, but again, that is not relevant when analysing a real situation).

Analyze this: Opinion | Religious law may be coming to America. But it’s not sharia; it’s Christian.

 

[sayak83]

Oh you really wanna go there as an Indian Hindu?

You can't even marry outside of your caste lol.

Brahmin, marries Brahmin
Kshatriya marries Kshatriya
Vaishya marries Vaishya and
Shudya marries Shudya.

Pot calling kettle blacker than itself? Kaalimaa? mujhe bheja dey, meri khopri mai kuch screw loose hai LOL stay in your lane.

Of course we can. Hindu religion has long since reformed. There is no longer any prohibitions against intercaste marriage. Some do and some don't. Personal choice. And if some individual Hindu family or Hindu group says they don't approve, I will simply call them out as bigots which they are. I am not in the "defend all Hindu groups regardless" business.

 

[Mohsen]

How religious of you.

Tom

Pointing out that you may like to wear dresses, Tom, is hardly a thing to do with religion is it? So I ask, do you like to pretend you are a femme fatale on occasion?

 

[idav]

Yeah, I understand that. But the argumentation could use a little more logic, I think. I mean, like all the other books of Tanach, the Book of Jeremiah was written by ... scribes. So who actually made the statement about the lying scribe? Other lying scribes? Does that mean Jeremiah never said it? It kind of seems like they're putting themselves into a hole with that type of argument, unless that could be properly hashed out with substantive reasoning.

That's what I was wondering too. I think they call that a slippery slope. For all I know he's fortelling the Quran.

 

[Mohsen]

Of course we can. Hindu religion has long since reformed. There is no longer any prohibitions against intercaste marriage. Some do and some don't. Personal choice. And if some individual Hindu family or Hindu group says they don't approve, I will simply call them out as bigots which they are. I am not in the "defend all Hindu groups regardless" business.

Reformed?

Nah.

I come from India - the reformation is political.

The fact remains - your holy books have not been revised The Veda is still the Veda... like Darth

 

[LuisDantas]

Analyze this: Opinion | Religious law may be coming to America. But it’s not sharia; it’s Christian.

Do you think I support that in some way, shape or form?

I don't understand why you posted that.

 

[sayak83]

Reformed?

Nah.

I come from India - the reformation is political.

The fact remains - your holy books have not been revised The Veda is still the Veda... like Darth

News flash: there is no marriage laws (or any laws whatsoever) in the Vedas. It contains chants invoking the Gods for various ceremonies followed by theological discourse in the Vedanta. Social laws and duties are subject to change in time, and are not part of the Vedas. We have had many law codes with vast regional variations over the centuries created by learned men of their time. They are subject to change and reform as the times change and ages turn.

 

[Mohsen]

Do you think I support that in some way, shape or form?

I don't understand why you posted that.

I don't think anyone would support it - and for the record - I don't want what you think shariah law is, to be implemented in the West. I already have it - in the town next to mine, there is a Shariah Court - expressly for the Muslim rites surrounding Births, Deaths, Marriages and Divorces - this is the only context we need it in.

As far as Shariah is concerned, it (The Shariah) states that when a Muslim is in a foreign land, as long as he can practice his faith freely without hindrance - it's all gravy.

the five fundamentals of faith for a Muslim

1] believe in one God and prophet Muhammad pbuh as the final prophet and messenger
2] do his prayers/worship
3] fast during ramadhan
4] go for pilgrimage to Mecca and
5] pay his zakat

We can do all these freely and without hindrance - so as far as we are concerned - we good here in the west. Additionally, the Shariah mandates that Muslims must abide by the laws of the lands they inhabit unless they take these religious freedoms away from us - in which case the Shariah mandates that we emigrate to somewhere where we can.

Well, since that time has not come - I'm settled. So are about 2 million more.

The Shariah bogeyman you've been sold is a lie, and the liars are your media such as FOX/CNN etc

Peace

 

[Mohsen]

News flash: there is no marriage laws (or any laws whatsoever) in the Vedas. It contains chants invoking the Gods for various ceremonies followed by theological discourse in the Vedanta. Social laws and duties are subject to change in time, and are not part of the Vedas. We have had many law codes with vast regional variations over the centuries created by learned men of their time. They are subject to change and reform as the times change and ages turn.

my mistake - I mean your law books like Smriti, the Manu, Yajnavalkya, Parasara etc talk of marriage rules among various kulas and gotras. According to the Varna, marriage is between two individuals of the same Varna. Ancient Hindu literature identified four varnas: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. According to the Manu Smritri partners in an inter-gotra marriage are to be shunned, exiled etc. In the rural areas of the Gujurat, this practice is still extant - how do you explain that? Did they forget about the "purification ceremony?" Oh wait, that is only for those Hindus who don't fall within the four Varna's. Seems very heirarchical and totally unfair... don't even get me started on the "untouchables"...

 

[sayak83]

my mistake - I mean your law books like Smriti, the Manu, Yajnavalkya, Parasara etc talk of marriage rules among various kulas and gotras. According to the Varna, marriage is between two individuals of the same Varna. Ancient Hindu literature identified four varnas: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. According to the Manu Smritri partners in an inter-gotra marriage are to be shunned, exiled etc. In the rural areas of the Gujurat, this practice is still extant - how do you explain that? Did they forget about the "purification ceremony?" Oh wait, that is only for those Hindus who don't fall within the four Varna's. Seems very heirarchical and totally unfair... don't even get me started on the "untouchables"...

Those who still practice such archaic discrimination are wrong and bigoted. Plain and simple. Hindu marriage laws have been reformed many decades ago on full consultation with Hindus. Similarly caste based discrimination of any kind is no longer considered compatible with Hindu dharma. The old law codes were for their times and not for this age.

 

[columbus]

my mistake - I mean your law books...

Maybe you just have trouble grasping other ways of viewing ancient writings and ethics and culture?
Not everybody feels that Scripture is a done deal, never to be changed or improved. Modern ethics are just plain better. Islam can't deal with that, due to the Quran.
Tom

 

[Mohsen]

Those who still practice such archaic discrimination are wrong and bigoted. Plain and simple. Hindu marriage laws have been reformed many decades ago on full consultation with Hindus. Similarly caste based discrimination of any kind is no longer considered compatible with Hindu dharma. The old law codes were for their times and not for this age.

this is not the status quo though.

the caste system is still pretty much still alive and kicking, and old ways die hard. Very hard!

the fact remains - Hindu's in India, where I am traditionally from, do not care for the "new ways" and the old ways prosper over all. The new ways read well on paper but are hardly practiced. And you know this, why are you so vehemently opposed to reality? the rural Indians far outnumber city dwellers and the rural Indians do not care for the new ways, heck even the city dwellers don't much care for them.

Fact - Indians have caste systems which are extant and prevalent in the modern age!

...
Not everybody feels that Scripture is a done deal, never to be changed or improved. Modern ethics are just plain better. Islam can't deal with that, due to the Quran.
Tom

Is that you Tom? or am I speaking to Barbara now?

 

[columbus]

Is that you Tom? or am I speaking to Barbara now?

Religious people have been baiting me with this sort of crap for a very long time. You'll have to do better.

Like respond to post #152. It was addressed to @Epic Beard Man, but he seems a bigger loser than Sayak.
Tom

 

[sayak83]

this is not the status quo though.

the caste system is still pretty much still alive and kicking, and old ways die hard. Very hard!

the fact remains - Hindu's in India, where I am traditionally from, do not care for the "new ways" and the old ways prosper over all. The new ways read well on paper but are hardly practiced. And you know this, why are you so vehemently opposed to reality? the rural Indians far outnumber city dwellers and the rural Indians do not care for the new ways, heck even the city dwellers don't much care for them.

Fact - Indians have caste systems which are extant and prevalent in the modern age!



Is that you Tom? or am I speaking to Barbara now?

How long back were you in India? Have you seen the rapid urban growth of India on the recent decades. You have heard of the large reservations of jobs and college seats implemented throughout India or that each school, public or private are now required to take in at least 25% children from economically or socially challenged groups? As a developing country there are many challenges, but there is little reason to doubt that progress will continue rapidly.

 

[columbus]

As a developing country there are many challenges, but there is little reason to doubt that progress will continue rapidly.

As opposed to Egypt?
During the Arab "Spring", how long did it take them to go from military dictatorship to democracy and back again?
I think I have been to movies that lasted longer than Egyptian democracy.
Tom