Israel signs unilateral ceasefire...

Vikram A Punathambekar

Please see my reply to Elaine below. Good luck with your exams. What are you doing on CP man?

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it.

Stan Shannon

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

He sometimes comes with the most left-field remarks and observations that I can't help but try and set him right. Unfortunately, he's proven to be quite stubborn and set in his ways for what seems to be an intelligent man.

The curious thing is how any argument which does not, in some way, pay homage to modern liberal or libertarian moral principles is always demonized as being beyond the bounds of proper civil society. It is really little different than being considered a heretic by more conventionally religious people. The truth is that I am as liberal in the classic sense of that word as anyone who hangs out here. I simply reject one tenet - that being liberal requires me to be infinitely tolerant, or at least tolerant of those things people like trollierthanthou tell me I am suposed to be tolerant of.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

soap brain

Stan Shannon wrote:

Well, that would indeed represent going all the way back to the stone age.

You seriously believe that stone-age folk upheld the tenets of secular humanism? :wtf:

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa

Stan Shannon wrote:

I try to make other westerners understand about Islam

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Are you serious?!!! Your acquaintance with Islam is not even surface level at best! Learn something about it and then try to preach what your opinions are about it.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I am repeatedly treated like some kind of radical hate monger. Yet, you yourself

Because you are Stan, be a man and face reality and look in the mirror. You do are a hate monger often enough. You make crass remarks like the one about stoning and then you have the audacity to say that you are knowledgeable and that you are trying to teach the truth about Islam. Your hypocrisy is rampant Stan.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Islam is a religion, but is also a set of political principles, a formulation of how to govern a society

It is, I'm not denying that, but those laws are not enforced properly. Islam as a religion is completely innocent of the hateful actions being committed in its name. You can say the exact same thing about Christianity. Christianity came with its own laws as well. You're just saying that you choose to follow or not follow some of the rules laid down in the Old Testament, thus rendering you a non-practicing christian. Do not adopt a holier than thou attitude, the halo so doesn't suit you.

Stan Shannon wrote:

But what about unleashing Muslims freely into a democratic society, where the laws are ultimatly up to the people themesleves to decide?

Nothing. The Qur'an clearly states [my translation] "You have your religion and I have mine." So long as a Muslim doesn't brake any of the five pillars of faith, he is required to follow the rule of law of the land he is in.

Stan Shannon wrote:

A sufficiently large population of muslims in any democratic society could easily turn that society into an Islamic state without actually violating the 'laws of the land'.

Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Tunis, Morocco, Libya are off the top of my head that are countries with an overwhelming Muslim majority where Shari'a is not the law of the land. Jordan is secular even and the Muslim population constitutes of about 90-95% Just because a country has a Muslim majority it does not mean that it is an Islamic state.

Oakman

Andy_L_J wrote:

If all the Hawks could be removed from both sides

Iran would hire some more and Israel would be pushed into the sea. End of story.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa

I know, I was just giving you an idea about the twit. Cheers mate. I can't help but be here because I'm addicted. Chris, if I fail tomorrow, its on your head :laugh: Also, I can't help but enjoy crossing swords with Oakman and trying to actually teach Stan something about the world outside his closed circle. So far, I don't think I've accomplished much which is sad.

Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful

Sig history "dad" Ishmail-Samuel Mustafa Unix is a Four Letter Word, and Vi is a Two Letter Abbreviation

Stan Shannon

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

You seriously believe that stone-age folk upheld the tenets of secular humanism?

No, I think you would have to go all the way back to the stone age to find a set of moral principles as inherently lacking in civil standards as those of secular humanism.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa

There are only three Muslim states and none of them follow the Shari'a law to the letter. The closest is Iran and they've perverted it according to the overwhelming majority of contemporary scholars. Saudi Arabia enforces a very selfish form of the law where the royal family is waaaay above the law and saudi national get dealt a soft version of it whilst the rest are trod on like dirt unless you live in an Aramco compound, then you can do anything you want short of murder. That particular law and the law for whipping (which by the way has a specific way) is partially enforced in the GCC and some occasional occurrences outside.

Oakman wrote:

women whipped half to death for being raped.

See, this is a prime example of perversion of the laws. According to Shari'a law, a rapist is killed because of the harm he has caused the woman and the citizens of the town. All Shari'a laws are about protecting her not about prosecuting her. I have no idea what the hell was going through the mind of the judge when made that insane decree. It really has no basis whatsoever in Islam.

Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful

Sig history "dad" Ishmail-Samuel Mustafa Unix is a Four Letter Word, and Vi is a Two Letter Abbreviation

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa

Stan Shannon wrote:

The curious thing is how any argument which does not, in some way, pay homage to modern liberal or libertarian moral principles is always demonized as being beyond the bounds of proper civil society. It is really little different than being considered a heretic by more conventionally religious people.

Funny, you seem to judge me and everyone you deem as a non-Christian or non-Jeffersonian in their views by that. I guess that makes us heretics.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The truth is that I am as liberal in the classic sense of that word as anyone who hangs out here.

You have yet to offer proof of that.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I simply reject one tenet - that being liberal requires me to be infinitely tolerant, or at least tolerant of those things people like trollierthanthou tell me I am suposed to be tolerant of.

What you have historically shown is a tendency to be completely intolerant of anything that does not agree with your hard set ideology. From religion to politics to economics to your perverted sense of civilization. You remind me of this: (not that I'm insinuating you are an ass, just as stubborn as one)[^]

Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful

Sig history "dad" Ishmail-Samuel Mustafa Unix is a Four Letter Word, and Vi is a Two Letter Abbreviation

soap brain

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, I think you would have to go all the way back to the stone age to find a set of moral principles as inherently lacking in civil standards as those of secular humanism.

[citation needed]

Oakman

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

The closest is Iran and they've perverted it according to the overwhelming majority of contemporary scholars.

Maybe so, but obviously there are a number of Muslim clerics who think everything is hunkey-dorey. Problem is, I talk about what is and you talk about what should be. By the way, I remind you that you ignored my first question: Is there some place you know of, outside of Muslim countries where the penalty for adultery is death? Is the only thing you can find, a 3,450 year old document?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

insinuating you are an ass, just as stubborn as one

Next he'll be telling us that Charles Dickens was a speech writer for Joe Stalin.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

[citation needed]

ROFL

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

soap brain

Call me crazy, but didn't he identify himself as a secular humanist? :confused:

Vikram A Punathambekar

I could easily be wrong, but I read in Reader's Digest that marriages between Christians and Muslims are forbidden by law in Jordan. Also, Jordan has Sharia courts, so I don't understand how you can call it a secular country. You can add Indonesia to your list of Muslim-majority non-Sharia countries.

Cheers, Vıkram.

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it.

Vikram A Punathambekar

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

There are only three Muslim states

What yardstick do you use to define what is a Muslim state and what isn't? I'd say if the Govt and religion intersect, you have a non-secular state. Based on that, I can count the following as Muslim states off the top of my head: Saudi Arabia Pakistan The UAE Afghanistan Yemen Kuwait Malaysia Iran Iraq Syria

Cheers, Vıkram.

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it.

Gary Kirkham

Maybe he is going back farther and referring to the Mughal, Safavid, and Ottoman Empires. I guess all of the states today flow from them.

Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read

Sahir Shah

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:

you have no conceivable idea of how hard it is to prove adultery. Yes it needs 4 witnesses, but there are a few dozen rules as to whom can be considered a witness and in fact they had to be present when the act was happening.

so, do the 4 witnesses get charged with voyeurism ?

Oakman

Sahir Shah wrote:

so, do the 4 witnesses get charged with voyeurism ?

Not unless there are 4 witnesses to the voyeurism. By the way, if I understand correctly, these have to be male witnesses. A woman only counts as half-a-witness.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Mustafa Ismail Mustafa

I'm studying but I nipped in really quick between chapters. If I'm not mistaken, anywhere there exists a sizeable muslim community you will find a Shari'a court. This is because many of the laws that exist in Islam require a study in them because of their complexity and interpretation from the codices (Qur'an, Sunnah and Hadith). This includes but is not limited to, marriage, divorce, feud settlement, and inheritance) The existence of such courts does not mean that the court system is Islamic (i.e. operates on Shari'a law and only that). Islamic states are those states that enforce Shari'a law and only Shari'a law, whether its for politics or for daily court sagas. As such, some countries that label themselves as Islamic republics are not actually Islamic states. A prime example is Bahrain (though the current King is trying to steer it towards that) another is Pakistan. Pakistan is officially called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan but its court system and political system (though based on Islamic law) is not Islamic. [ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic[^]] The closest that comes to an Islamic State is Iran and even that is flawed. With regards to a marriage between Christians and Muslims, that is not correct. There are many examples, my mother is one, my mother in law is another, my friend (an Italian from Genoa) is married to a Jordanian girl and there are many many more. The Prophet Mohammed was married to a Jew. The general trend (though not a requirement except possibly in some of the more "strict" countries like KSA) is that the non-Muslim spouse adopts Islam as a religion. However, according to Shari'a, it states clearly [my translation] "do not give your daughters unto mushrikeen until they embrace Islam" Mushrikeen was used to describe the pagans who lived about Mecca because they gave a Godly status to their idols, the definition then changed to mean other than followers of Abrahamic religions. The debate has been there a long time with some saying its OK for a man to marry a non-Muslim but its not for a woman unless the man embraces Islam and others are arguing that the words are clear that so long as he is a believer (a follower of the Abrahamic religions) its legal.

Don't forget to vote if the response was helpful

[](</x-turndown)