This came up in the secular moral code thread. I thought I would start a new thread so as not to hijack it.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214870370/28#28

Questions for Abu and Malik: What is Islamic law regarding pedophilia and homosexuality? Does it accept higher societal standards or tolerance? Would you support different standards to what Islam teaches you? Can something be wrong or immoral, even if the Koran does not describe it as such?

---

Both are considered illegal practises and are capital offenses under Islamic law.

Can you be more specific? How do you judge whether pedophilia has been committed? Is it OK to be a homosexual, provided you don't actually have sex?

Does Islam compel you to lobby for capital punishment for gays and pedophiles? What other crimes?

Islam prohibits vigilantism, and we definitely do not condone attempting to clandestinely implement our law in a non-Islamic state. This is a matter that is often confused and misconstrued in the media.

Earlier, Malik claimed to support secular democracy, but when questioned further he said he would vote against it. Is it clandestine to publicly declare your support for something up until you are able to change it to what you really want?

I believe in Islam, so no I don't support different standards. However, since we do not live under an Islamic government, we must live by different laws. The two should not be confused.

How does this work? Is a gay Muslim allowed to have sex with other men if the local law allows it?

Also, how hard does Islam say you should work towards changing laws? Should you write to the media and encourage people to (legally) execute gays?

---

An interesting and relevant comment on another thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214785726/30#30

Malm, I apologise if you are offended. But the fact remains that people on this forum tend to shoot first and ask questions later regarding Islam so I clarified that the behaviour was unislamic as is my duty in Islam.

Quote:

Can you be more specific? How do you judge whether pedophilia has been committed?

I'm no legal scholar, so I couldn't really give you the fine details. However, any sexual activity outside of marriage is considered illegal. Since nobody can be married prior to attaining puberty, then any sexual activity with a minor (that is, someone who hasn't attained puberty) would be considered illegal.


Quote:

Is it OK to be a homosexual, provided you don't actually have sex?

Islam does not recognise any such category of people as "homosexuals". Islam recognise thress classes of people, male, female and mukhaneth, those whose sex is ambigious. There are certain laws pertaining to them, and their condition is just considered a medical abnormality. However they are not what I think you refer to as homosexuals. What you mean is people who choose, yes they do choose, to engage in illegal sexual activities with members of the same sex. Such perversions were quite rare under Islamic rule, as the society was one which was conducive to people experiencing normal and healthy relationships within the confines of marriage. I know you're going to tell me "No, at all periods of time, they've existed in all societies in roughly the same proportions" etc. but this is just nonsense. There are very few cases of it ever being discovered in Islamic societies, and the records of punishment for it are few and far between. It existed in the fantasies of orientalists, that's about it.

I guess Islam would consider those who've experienced an urge towards such activities to be the victims of temptations from the devil, and that like any other temptation, it is a test for them, to see if they resist and pursue the correct path, or take the path of illegal and destructive activities.


Quote:

Does Islam compel you to lobby for capital punishment for gays and pedophiles? What other crimes?

Islam doesn't really compel Muslims to lobby for anything. We can lobby for our rights if we like, but as for lobbying for something like that, what would be the point? It's all through the media and in popular culture everwyehre. It is encouiraged a lot amongst society, so what would be the point in asking for capital punishment for it? Is it just to punish for something which is so heavily encouraged in society anyway? It just doesn't make sense. Your whole question actually doesn't make sense, it just seems to be worded in some half baked attempt to implicate Muslims as fanatics wanting to implement an out of place law in this society. Please make your questions at least half sensible.

Islam is a wholistic system, just picking one of it's punishments and applying it out of context, and out of place, in a society which doesn't even implement the most basic tenets that Islam relies upon is just a ludicrous idea.


Quote:

Is it clandestine to publicly declare your support for something up until you are able to change it to what you really want?

I am not speaking for Malik specifically, as I really don't know him enouigh to know how he thinks. But amongst Muslims generally there is a lot of confusion surrounding concepts lioke secularism and democracy, and this is quite a deliberate thing. The West has installed, and continues to fund and openly support the most brutal dictatorships in the Muslim countries, whilst at the same time, has also supported their opposition, although only through empty talk. So they've propagated these ideas that "Democracy is the opposite of what you live under now, you live under tyrrany, you need democracy, you live in poverty, you need democracy".

Also a lot of Muslims, even intelligent, educated Muslims mistake the word democracy to mean "popular election of a ruler", when it fact this not the case at all. This misconception obviously occurs because Islam has had a system of popular election (called bay'ah) of the ruler for well over 1350 years now, although it wasn't implemented that often, it was part of the model of the Caliphate that the early Caliphs established, although not the only means of appointing a ruler they implemented.

As for secularism, I don't know how anyone could mistake secularism for being in any way compatible with Islam, as it is clearly not.


Quote:

How does this work? Is a gay Muslim allowed to have sex with other men if the local law allows it?

Allowed by who? If you mean is it allowed under Australian law, I think you know the answer to that. In Islam it is, as I've mentioned an abhorrent crime, and is therefore strictly forbidden. There's no such things as a "gay muslim" because believing yourself to be "gay" means that you reject Islam as a belief system. Anyone who considers homosexuality to be a valid lifestyle, would've taken themselves outside of the fold of Islam, and would not be a Muslim.


Quote:

Also, how hard does Islam say you should work towards changing laws? Should you write to the media and encourage people to (legally) execute gays?

I've already addressed this point for you in another thread, search for the word vigilantism. Although I'm pretty sure you read it, and you're just trying to be provocative. Please, stick to rational discussion, if I wanted to listen to mindless sensationalism, I'd open a paper or turn on the idiot box.

Sorry Abu, but you are deluding yourself even more than usually, if you really believe homosexuality is excluded from muslim societies.

They may be muslims, but before they were muslim they were human, and just like islam, you can only leave that state via death, and homosexuality has been a part of human nature as far back as recorded history.

Arabs even have a saying;
"If you want convenience, use a goat,
If you want a child, use your wife,
If you want pleasure, use a boy"

You have probably heard it befors, and it probably started out a little humourously, but that only strengthens it's probability, as being reflective of the culture.

hmmm.. ok so lets take a look at it.

homosexuality as in a man having sexual preference and feelings for men over women is rare in the middle east, however men having sex with men and women having sex with women in places like saudi arabia isnt.

in fact, my friend went there a couple of years ago and alot of the times he'd go to a public toilet there were guys having sex in there..

that is not because guys prefer guys over women, but instead is because that is their only option because saudi arabia's segregation laws are excessive and unnatural. there's no other alternative for guys and girls there because they see no one of the opposite sex who isnt their family and then even when they do, they can't marry yet because parents want them to marry at the age of 25+ rather than letting them marry earlier.

Quote:

if you really believe homosexuality is excluded from muslim societies.

There is no Islamic society today. The Islamic laws/system ceased being officially implemented on March 3rd. 1924. Since that time, there has been no society in the world living under Islamic law, and therefore no society which can be called Muslim. I believe, that in the 1350 years that Islamic society did exist, this behaviour was very rarely observed. And I challenge you to bring forth the historical evidence of it, if you can. And I don't want to see any sick orientalist fantasies about bored harems or Turkish baths, I want real statistics from Islamic courts etc. If you don't have the evidence, don't make the claims, as I'm sorry I can't accept your "projections" about what "should've" existed in all cultures since the beginning of time. this is unscientific nonsense.


Quote:

Arabs even have a saying

I've never heard that saying mate, I think you got it off your kiwi friends.

Almost every Arab I have met, if you actually said this to them in Arabic, you'd wanna be a fast runner.

Enough of the deluded fantasies please. If you wanna be taken seriously, bring forth something concrete.

furthermore, the punishment for having homosexual feelings is not the death penalty.

the death penalty applies when two conditions have been fulfilled.
1. the person committing the act is married
2. there are four witnesses to the event.

now lets think about that..

if someone does have gay sex in the privacy of their own homes, how on earth would there be four witnesses? there simply wouldn't be four witnesses because spying on people to get that kind of information is forbidden in islam.

the reason why the death penalty applies to having four witnesses is because for four witnesses to have seen it, it would mean that the people committing the act would have to be so blatantly arrogant so as to do the act in public in the view of others. if that's the case then they are forcing their own perversion on the rest of society and spreading fitnah in the land. thus the duty of care on the government is to keep the rest of society safe from such perversion and deter such behaviour by applying death by stoning.

if however the people do it in their own house, then it is between them and God and they will be punished by Him in the next life for their sins.

also, if i am not mistaken, if the person committing the sin is not married they will be punished as someone who fornicates which is 100 lashes i believe as they have not cheated on their partner.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 1:24am:

Allowed by who? If you mean is it allowed under Australian law, I think you know the answer to that. In Islam it is, as I've mentioned an abhorrent crime, and is therefore strictly forbidden. There's no such things as a "gay muslim" because believing yourself to be "gay" means that you reject Islam as a belief system. Anyone who considers homosexuality to be a valid lifestyle, would've taken themselves outside of the fold of Islam, and would not be a Muslim.

I'm sorry, but there is a difference of opinion on that issue.

If I drink and think it's ok to drink, it doesn't mean I'm not a Muslim. Someone should only be considered non-Muslim if they commit sins like shirkh or certain other crimes. Certainly an action like drinking or homosexuality is a sin, but doesn't take them out of the fold of Islam, it just means they aren't practicing Islam properly.

That is between them and God and they'll be punished for it. It's not for us as Muslims to call another person a non-Muslim because of sins like that because that is only for God to judge and I would discourage putting your own position in paradise in jeopardy by speculating or saying such things about others, because if you are wrong you are the one who will be considered non Muslim by God..

Sorry boys, but you really need to try NOYFBism, it requires far less mental stress for you, trying to remember what aspect of what teaching, is currently needing justification, and does it clash with previous teachings, phew! that must get tiresome.

Abu first, what would you know about arab sayings?
I was told that one by an egyptian.

Now you do make the perfect religious tool, because you will only believe Islamic sources, and the probability of muslim homosexuals having a gay pride march through mecca is pretty slim.
Don't forget the good old catch all, if they do that then they are not true muslims anyway.

Muslims are a lot like an old mate of mine, who was a confirmed pacifist, except when he was angry, sincere, but totally full of it.

So basically, when there's grass on the wicket, it's time to play cricket? But you have to marry first, or shortly after?

Such perversions were quite rare under Islamic rule

Just because you don't see it, you assume it is rare? that is absurd. Obviously if the penalty is death, they aren't going to parade it in front of everyone. Lack of statistical evidence is in no way evidence of absence of homosexuality, as you claimed. That is a simple logical fallacy.

It is encouiraged a lot amongst society, so what would be the point in asking for capital punishment for it? Is it just to punish for something which is so heavily encouraged in society anyway?

Well, obviously you would lobby for it to be discouraged first, before you start executing gays.

it just seems to be worded in some half baked attempt to implicate Muslims as fanatics wanting to implement an out of place law in this society

But that is what you would like to do, right? You just accept that, for the time being, it is unlikely to happen.

Islam has had a system of popular election (called bay'ah) of the ruler for well over 1350 years now

When was it last implimented?

As for secularism, I don't know how anyone could mistake secularism for being in any way compatible with Islam, as it is clearly not.

Well a lot of Muslims insist that their religion is not incompatable with Australian values and the Australian way of life. Are they lying? Or do they really think that theocracy is part of the Australian way of life?

I've already addressed this point for you in another thread, search for the word vigilantism.

Saying you oppose vigilantism does not answer the question at all. In fact I even quoted that comment in the first post. Ruling out vigilantism leaves a lot open in terms of how hard you should lobby to get gay people executed and allow you to marry 4 twelve year old girls.

Malik:

homosexuality as in a man having sexual preference and feelings for men over women is rare in the middle east, however men having sex with men and women having sex with women in places like saudi arabia isnt

Are you saying Saudi is not aprt of the middle east?

that is not because guys prefer guys over women, but instead is because that is their only option because saudi arabia's segregation laws are excessive and unnatural

Crap. If the penalty for homsexuality is death (as Abu claimed), then you can hardly argue that the law pushes men to it.

the death penalty applies when two conditions have been fulfilled.
1. the person committing the act is married
2. there are four witnesses to the event.

So homosexuality is legal in Islam provided you aren't married? Is that your solution to running out of women because the rich men have four wives?

Quote:

If I drink and think it's ok to drink, it doesn't mean I'm not a Muslim

Malik, I sincerely request that you speak with a person of knowledge about this. If someone drinks but knows he's doing haraam, that person is sinful, if someone drinks and believes drinking to be halaal then that person has perverted the shari'ah and his beliefs and aqeedah no longer match that of Islam, such a person, according to all 4 schools of fiqh has taken himself outside of Islam. You are correct that actions do not make someone a kaafir, but belief certainly does.

freediver,


Quote:

Just because you don't see it, you assume it is rare? that is absurd. Obviously if the penalty is death, they aren't going to parade it in front of everyone. Lack of statistical evidence is in no way evidence of absence of homosexuality, as you claimed. That is a simple logical fallacy.

The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. If you've claimed something exists, it's not up to me to prove an absence of it.


Quote:

Well, obviously you would lobby for it to be discouraged first, before you start executing gays.

You still seem oblivious to what I was saying. Islam is a wholistic system, if the 100% complete system is not implemented, there's absolutely no point campaigning for little fragments of it, which themselves depend on the whole system anyway. When Islam comes to Australia, it will come, it doesn't even exist in the Muslim lands, so what's the point in campaigning for it here? The whole concept is just absurd, again, please stop trying to mimic the media with sensationalist nonsense.


Quote:

But that is what you would like to do, right? You just accept that, for the time being, it is unlikely to happen

The punishment and legal system of Islam is one tiny little facet of it. What I'd like to see is Australians, en masse, embracing the belief system of Islam. Once this occurs, then the other stuff just naturally follows. Your claims that I am sitting back wanting to implement one little punishment for one segment of society is just rubbish, you're just wasting your time and mine.

I believe they are victims of this society which has in some way or another pushed them into an abnormal lifestyle (doesn't excuse them, they still make the choice, as do drug addicts etc). When the society begins to embrace Islam on a larger scale than it already is, such abnormalities will evaporate. They are a symptom of this sick society, not the root cause of it.


Quote:

When was it last implimented?

It was officially abolished in writing on March 3rd. 1924. But in reality it was about 15 years prior when the Committee of Union & Progress seized control of the Ottoman Caliphate and deposed the last truly independant Caliph and began implementing their own secular non-Islamic laws right across society.


Quote:

Well a lot of Muslims insist that their religion is not incompatable with Australian values and the Australian way of life.

Capitalism and Communism are incompatible ideologies, are you suggesting Australian Communist's and Socialist's way of life is incompatible with Australian lifestyle? Please your lines of argument are just ridiculous. Learn how to debate.


Quote:

Ruling out vigilantism leaves a lot open in terms of how hard you should lobby to get gay people executed and allow you to marry 4 twelve year old girls.

Implementing a legal punishment is the role of a state, it has nothing to do with individuals. I have no right to execute anyone, nor to lobby for anyone to be executed. This is what it means to reject the concept of vigilantism, to believe in the rule of law and the authority of the state, even if you don't agree 100% with the ideology of that state. I'm really not going to waste my time with anymore ridiculously loaded questions, which have already been answered anyway. If you want enlightened debate, then I'm ready, if you wanna just post drivel, find someone else to amuse you.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 11:10am:

Malik: homosexuality as in a man having sexual preference and feelings for men over women is rare in the middle east, however men having sex with men and women having sex with women in places like saudi arabia isnt Are you saying Saudi is not aprt of the middle east?

Perhaps you didn't understand what I said FD, if a man is only attracted to, has feelings of love and wants sex with only men in preference over women then that is homosexuality.

That is rare in the middle east, in the middle east in places like saudi arabia there are people who commit homosexual actions but do it because they have no ability to do it with women. they use a male as substitute. thus it is not homosexuality, just one committing homosexual acts.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 11:10am:

that is not because guys prefer guys over women, but instead is because that is their only option because saudi arabia's segregation laws are excessive and unnatural Crap. If the penalty for homsexuality is death (as Abu claimed), then you can hardly argue that the law pushes men to it.

Of course it pushes men to it, even if the penalty is so high the hypocrisy by the laws and social practice give young men and women no alternative. what do you expect them to do when they are hormone filled youths who don't have contact with the opposite sex?

instead some have sex with the same sex to relieve themselves.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 11:10am:

the death penalty applies when two conditions have been fulfilled. 1. the person committing the act is married 2. there are four witnesses to the event. So homosexuality is legal in Islam provided you aren't married? Is that your solution to running out of women because the rich men have four wives?

don't put words in my mouth FD.

committing homosexual acts is forbidden in islam, undoubtedly..

although the punishment for one who commits it of death by stoning may only apply in situations when they are married because they are committing adultery, for those who are unmarried i believe the punishment is 100 lashes for fornication.

again i could be wrong and it could be death by stoning for both but thus far i haven't seen evidence pointing to the latter.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 11:18am:

Quote: If I drink and think it's ok to drink, it doesn't mean I'm not a Muslim Malik, I sincerely request that you speak with a person of knowledge about this. If someone drinks but knows he's doing haraam, that person is sinful, if someone drinks and believes drinking to be halaal then that person has perverted the shari'ah and his beliefs and aqeedah no longer match that of Islam, such a person, according to all 4 schools of fiqh has taken himself outside of Islam. You are correct that actions do not make someone a kaafir, but belief certainly does.

Yes, but if it's out of ignorance rather than knowing it's haram but saying it's halal?

The onus of proof is on the one making the claim.

Then re-read the thread. It is you who made the absurd claim about gays not existing in Islam, not me.

Islam is a wholistic system

Right, so as well as executing gays and being allowed to marry 4 eleven year old girls, you would want lots of other changes - changes that make executing gays seem reasonable?

if the 100% complete system is not implemented, there's absolutely no point campaigning for little fragments of it

So how would you go about making change? What would you change first? The fact that you would want other changes does not negate the fact that you would want gays executed.

it doesn't even exist in the Muslim lands, so what's the point in campaigning for it here?

First, a contradiction - if the lands are Muslim, doesn't that mean islam is there? Furthermore, doesn't Islam compel you to champion Islam whereever you are?

The whole concept is just absurd, again, please stop trying to mimic the media with sensationalist nonsense.

You are the one who suggested executing gays and being allowed to marry four eleven year old girls (wholistically of course) is a good idea, not me. I am not sensationalising it at all. I am just repeating what you tell me. If it sounds sensationalist, perhaps you need to look at your own beliefs.

Your claims that I am sitting back wanting to implement one little punishment for one segment of society

That is not what I am claiming. I obviously accept that you would also campaign to make murder illegal, etc. You seem to be implying that there is something wrong with asking specific questions. Why is that? Are you suggesting that executing gays will be a 'mere triviality' amongst all the other changes you wish for our society?

It was officially abolished in writing on March 3rd. 1924. But in reality it was about 15 years prior

So the middle east had democratically elected rulers up until then?

Capitalism and Communism are incompatible ideologies

Not true. Australia is a nominally capitalist society, but we embrace many aspects of socialism. Pure capitalism and pure socialism are incompatible because they are extreme opposite ends of a spectrum. However, few people adopt the purist view as their ideology. There is no chruch of capitalism, or church of communism.

are you suggesting Australian Communist's and Socialist's way of life is incompatible with Australian lifestyle?

The extreme communists, yes. I would hate to think of communists or socialists running this country. Socialism works fine in a family or small community setting, so the 'way of life' is not at odds with Australian values.

Implementing a legal punishment is the role of a state, it has nothing to do with individuals.

That's just absurd. The state is made up of individduals. Furthermore Islam promotes theocracy as the ultimate way of life. Saying it is up to the state and not you personally is a lame copout, because as an Australian citizen you have influence over the state. I am not asking whether you would personally execute gays when it was illegal, I am asking about whether you would support capital punishment for gays, which you apparently would. You just try to avoid admitting it.

I have no right to execute anyone, nor to lobby for anyone to be executed.

Yes you do have a right to lobby. I'm not sure why you don't realise this. As far as I can tell, you have an obligation under Islam to follow through with it as soon as you are able to.

thus it is not homosexuality, just one committing homosexual acts.

I don't get the difference. How is it possible to have sex with other men if there is no attraction involved? How would they get an erection?

Of course it pushes men to it, even if the penalty is so high the hypocrisy by the laws and social practice give young men and women no alternative.

Why wouldn't they just ahve sex with women if they are breaking the law anyway?

what do you expect them to do when they are hormone filled youths who don't have contact with the opposite sex?

I've been to a male only boarding school. We did not have sex with each other. Maybe it is something to do with indoctrinating people into thinking they have no control over their sexual urges and that it is up to physical barriers rather than self control to stop orgies.

don't put words in my mouth FD.

I didn't. It was a question.

again i could be wrong and it could be death by stoning for both but thus far i haven't seen evidence pointing to the latter.

I would appreciate knowing the actual rule.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:11pm:

thus it is not homosexuality, just one committing homosexual acts. I don't get the difference. How is it possible to have sex with other men if there is no attraction involved? How would they get an erection?

Just like men in prison have sex with other men sometimes, its not because they are attracted, its because their is no other option.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:11pm:

Of course it pushes men to it, even if the penalty is so high the hypocrisy by the laws and social practice give young men and women no alternative. Why wouldn't they just ahve sex with women if they are breaking the law anyway?

If they can, of course they do. But in a society where you get whipped if you even talk to a member of the opposite sex who is not in your immediate family and can't even see their faces how do you expect them to meet and get to know each other?

Bluetooth technology has made it easier for them to meet as has the internet but still it's very difficult, thus they commit these acts with the same sex.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:11pm:

what do you expect them to do when they are hormone filled youths who don't have contact with the opposite sex? I've been to a male only boarding school. We did not have sex with each other. Maybe it is something to do with indoctrinating people into thinking they have no control over their sexual urges and that it is up to physical barriers rather than self control to stop orgies.

No, you may not have but it does occur I'm afraid. It does come down to self control, just like many Saudis don't have gay sex when they are growing up they control themselves..


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:11pm:

again i could be wrong and it could be death by stoning for both but thus far i haven't seen evidence pointing to the latter. I would appreciate knowing the actual rule.

I'll do some research and get back to you. Either way it only applies with four witnesses and if someone is so blatantly arrogant to actually do it in public in an Islamic State like that then it serves them right.

Just the same as if I blatantly break the law in this country in public and arrogantly expect no one to do anything about it the punishment I get would definitely be deserving.

The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. If you've claimed something exists, it's not up to me to prove an absence of it.

Great argument Abu, have you ever considered that argument when justifying your belief in Allah? ;D

mozzaok wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:47pm:

The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. If you've claimed something exists, it's not up to me to prove an absence of it.

Is it possible to prove the nonexistence of anything?

Just like men in prison have sex with other men sometimes, its not because they are attracted, its because their is no other option.

That doesn't answer the question and it doesn't make sense either. How can you get an erection if there is no attraction? There are other options, like masturbation. I suspect this idea of gay sex as a subsititute for hetero sex is just an absurd position taken to try to avoid the issue of executing gays. If men can marry up to four wives, then inevitably some men will be forced to go without. So even 'wholistic' Islam is going to put men in that position.

No, you may not have but it does occur I'm afraid.

Yes, gays have sex with each other. But straight people don't just subsitute men for women.

Either way it only applies with four witnesses and if someone is so blatantly arrogant to actually do it in public in an Islamic State like that then it serves them right.

I don't believe this issue of four witnesses actually protects people. Surely if someone is committing a crime, then it should be investigated. The idea that something is illegal, but it is also illegal to try to prove it, is absurd. I suspect you are misrepresenting the Koran there. Yes it may protect against the theocracy going into everyone's bedroom, but once people become suspicious of gays it is inevitable that they will be rooted out. Whether this happens according to the Koran or not is irrelevant. It is human nature. If you make gay sex illegal, people will investigate it.

Just the same as if I blatantly break the law in this country in public and arrogantly expect no one to do anything about it the punishment I get would definitely be deserving.

Right, but here it is legal to have gay sex with four people watching. You are misrepresenting the four witnesses part. Just because in modern society it would be hard to get four witnesses to a private act does not mean it would never happen. Even today there are lots of people who cannot afford privacy. For example, to homeless gay men may make reasonable effort to hide their acts from public, but eventually some group of people is going to bust them. In muhammed's time, few people would have ahd that sort of privacy ensured. I don't believe it is restricted to stopping people having sex in full view of everyone else, neither in practice nor in intent.

Do the four witnesses have to witness it at the same time?

Malik,


Quote:

Yes, but if it's out of ignorance rather than knowing it's haram but saying it's halal?

If it were truly out of ignorance, then of course the person is excused, like with a more obscure belief which isn't well known. But things like alcohol and homosexual acts are well known to be forbidden in Islam, anyone who claimed they weren't would most likely be doing it knowingly and would take themselves outside the fold of Islam  I think even most non-Muslims know these things are forbidden in Islam.

freediver,


Quote:

Then re-read the thread. It is you who made the absurd claim about gays not existing in Islam, not me.

Actually I think someone else made the original claim in the thread from which you forked this.


Quote:

First, a contradiction - if the lands are Muslim, doesn't that mean islam is there?

No. Muslims are people, Islam is a system of living. The people are there, but the system is not. No contradiction.


Quote:

You are the one who suggested executing gays and being allowed to marry four eleven year old girls (wholistically of course) is a good idea, not me. I am not sensationalising it at all.

Executing any human being for any crime is a serious issue, and I haven't seen anyone running around claiming it's a good idea. As has been noted, the requirements for actually passing a capital sentence are quite stringent, four witnesses for instance. You *are* being a sensationalist.


Quote:

You seem to be implying that there is something wrong with asking specific questions. Why is that?

Nothing wrong with asking specific questions, but they're always the same boring old questions that really have no relevance to an individual Muslim. What punishments an Islamic State implements are not really my business as an individual Muslim, why do you not ask me a question about Islamic economic policy or the role of science and techology in Islamic society? Why must the Western "enquirers" these days always being with "Do you wanna execute gays??". Is this all that your depraved minds are focused on?


Quote:

So the middle east had democratically elected rulers up until then?

Wait a minute. Where did I say anything about that?

The Islamic system existed in the Muslim lands prior to that time, not the Democratic system. Just to make it clear, Democracy is not merely the popular election of a leader, Democracy comes from the word Demos Kratos and refers to a system whereby human beings legislate their own laws according to their own concepts of right and wrong, something Islam strictly forbids. As I mentioned, Islam has used the process of popular election of a leader at times, but not commonly, either way that's irrelevant, what I stated was that the Islamic system was being implemented, the society was Islamic, and we can judge it as an Islamic society, unlike the post-colonialist states that exist in the Muslim lands today.


Quote:

Pure capitalism and pure socialism are incompatible because they are extreme opposite ends of a spectrum

They are incompatible ideologies, but that doesn't mean a believer in one cannot live under the other. Your ideas wreak of McCarthyism, and I think you'd like to inflict the same kind of bias and oppression upon the Muslims in today's Australian society. It is you who holds beliefs and seeks to implement actions that contradict Australian values, not I.


Quote:

The extreme communists, yes. I would hate to think of communists or socialists running this country.

Again another example of your sensationalism. Nobody said anything about anyone running this country. This is your own xenophobic fear, that Muslims are here to lobby the government and eventually take it over, so they can execute all the gays.


Quote:

That's just absurd. The state is made up of individduals

This is a fundamental flaw in your understanding about the nature of states. A state is not merely a loose collection of individuals all acting as independant entities. It is a much more complex beast than that. The individuals have next to no bearing on the activities of the state whatsoever, it is all done through institutions and bodies that follow strict processes and procedures. A muslim individual has no authority to implement a punishment from the State's penal code, and expecting an individual Muslim to be responsible for it is ludicrous.

What's more ludicrous is that you suggested Muslims would be in other countries trying to clandestinely implement those punishments. Really your whole line of questioning is just laughable.


Quote:

I am asking about whether you would support capital punishment for gays, which you apparently would. You just try to avoid admitting it.

Let me give you a small example to demonstrate why your line of questioning is pointless. During the time of Caliph Omar Bin al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him), there was a famine in the Arabian Peninsula, the heartland and capital of the Islamic State at the time. During the famine Caliph Omar suspended the punishment for stealing. Why did he do that? Because the laws of Islam have requirements for how society must be, before the punishments can be implemented. If those conditions don't exist, then it's not justice to implement the punishment for them.

In short, I would not support capital punishment in this society for anyone, because the society itself doesn't even attempt to provide an atmosphere which discourages people from committing the kind of crimes we're talking about.

5500 character limit reached.. again. This is really annoying, if  someone here has the ability to increase it, please do so.

continued...


Quote:

Yes you do have a right to lobby. I'm not sure why you don't realise this. As far as I can tell, you have an obligation under Islam to follow through with it as soon as you are able to.

Your understanding of Islam is very limited, I'd really suggest you do some independant reading if you're serious about understanding and debating Islam, stop taking it all from media hype.

Islam does not compel me to enforce any punishment, that is purely the responsibility of the head of state. I have absolutely no responsibility for it whatsoever. I think you've been watching too many 60 minutes reports about tribal vigilantism in the backhills of Pakistan or India, their barbarism has nothing to do with Islam, and in many cases they commit the most horrific of crimes, for which they'll be severely punished in the afterlife.

Executing any human being for any crime is a serious issue, and I haven't seen anyone running around claiming it's a good idea.

Isn't that what the Koran commands? Is Islamic law a bad idea?

As has been noted, the requirements for actually passing a capital sentence are quite stringent, four witnesses for instance.

That isn't stringent at all. It certainly won't stop gays being executed. You appear to be conceding that it is wrong to execute gays by suggesting that the requirements that reduce the number of executed gays are a good idea.

Nothing wrong with asking specific questions, but they're always the same boring old questions that really have no relevance to an individual Muslim.

Well, I'm not a Muslim.

What punishments an Islamic State implements are not really my business as an individual Muslim

That's absurd. You are pretending that Islamic law is none of your business as a Muslim? Are you a fair weather Muslim that only supports Islam when it is tempered by outside influences?

why do you not ask me a question about Islamic economic policy or the role of science and techology in Islamic society?

Because I don't care about that. Being tolerant of science hardly makes up for killing gay people. I'm not going to ask you what you had for breakfast either, for the same reason.

Why must the Western "enquirers" these days always being with "Do you wanna execute gays??". Is this all that your depraved minds are focused on?

So you accuse me of sensationalising issues, but then accuse me of being depraved for standing up for human rights? I shouldn't have to answer that. If you had any understanding of Australian values, you wouldn't have to ask.

Wait a minute. Where did I say anything about that?

Well I'm just trying to understand you.

Democracy is not merely the popular election of a leader

Yes but I was asking about electing leaders democratically. When did that last happen under Islamic law?

As I mentioned, Islam has used the process of popular election of a leader at times, but not commonly, either way that's irrelevant

It is not irrelevant to me.

what I stated was that the Islamic system was being implemented, the society was Islamic, and we can judge it as an Islamic society, unlike the post-colonialist states that exist in the Muslim lands today

Perhaps you should have just answered the question. You are welcome to clarify it all you want, but you should answer it first or there is no point.

They are incompatible ideologies, but that doesn't mean a believer in one cannot live under the other.

I am not saying you cannot live under our laws. I am asking about how you would change them, if you could.

Your ideas wreak of McCarthyism, and I think you'd like to inflict the same kind of bias and oppression upon the Muslims in today's Australian society.

I am just asking questions Abu. Questions that seem to make you uncomfortable. To equate that with McCarthyism is sensationalising the discussion. This is a politics forum. I am asking how you would change this society, if you could.

It is you who holds beliefs and seeks to implement actions that contradict Australian values, not I.

You are welcome to mount such an argument, if you can.

Again another example of your sensationalism.

Wrong. Most Australians would hate the thought of living under communism.

This is your own xenophobic fear, that Muslims are here to lobby the government and eventually take it over, so they can execute all the gays.

Hang on, both you and Malik said you want Islam to dominate Australia. Malik said he would vote for Australia to become an Islamic state if he had the chance. I am merely asking you to clarify the issue.

A state is not merely a loose collection of individuals

True, but completely beside the point. Saying your opinion doesn't matter is not the same as saying you have no opinion. Because we live in a democracy your opinion does matter. Are you saying it is only OK to have these opinions if there is no chance they will be implimented?

A muslim individual has no authority to implement a punishment from the State's penal code,

Yes they do. Our institutions are set up to facilitate this, not to prevent it.

and expecting an individual Muslim to be responsible for it is ludicrous

I am not expecting one Muslim to do it alone. As Malik pointed out, he would merely do it as soon as he was able to. This doesn't change anything.

What's more ludicrous is that you suggested Muslims would be in other countries trying to clandestinely implement those punishments.

No I did not suggest that. Instead, I asked if it was clandestine for Malik to publicly proclaim support for secular democracy then vote against it at the first opportunity. You can hardly blame me for asking you to clarify these issues. If you believe in theocracy, executing gays, marrying 4 eleven year old girls etc, you should say so, not tell everyone you support our laws, up until you are in a position to change them. That is clandestine. That is deceptive.

Your understanding of Islam is very limited,

Duh, that is why I am asking you. I must say, my understanding is not exactly improving. Perhaps a fundamentalist Christian website woudl explain it better?

Islam does not compel me to enforce any punishment, that is purely the responsibility of the head of state.

And as malik pointed out, he would vote for an Islamic state, which would presumably have a Muslim head of state. You cannot deny responsibility for setting something like that up because the theocrat is to blame. If you support an Islamic state, with a Muslim head of state, tell us what it would be like, rather than trying to avoid responsibility for the consequences.

re: fornication - I think Malik mentioned this. Is it the same punishment regardless of the sexual orientation? That is, if two straight people has sex before they were married, would they get 100 lashes? Could they avoid the punishment by getting married?

What is the penalty for extramarital sex?

What is the penalty for a woman who uncovers more than her face and hands? Are there any similar restrictions on men? Are children free of all clothing restrictions?

I am putting together a list of apparent conflicts. Pleas let me know if I have anything wrong. Or you can edit it yourself directly.

http://ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:

Just like men in prison have sex with other men sometimes, its not because they are attracted, its because their is no other option. That doesn't answer the question and it doesn't make sense either. How can you get an erection if there is no attraction? There are other options, like masturbation. I suspect this idea of gay sex as a subsititute for hetero sex is just an absurd position taken to try to avoid the issue of executing gays. If men can marry up to four wives, then inevitably some men will be forced to go without. So even 'wholistic' Islam is going to put men in that position. No, you may not have but it does occur I'm afraid. Yes, gays have sex with each other. But straight people don't just subsitute men for women.

Not all men can afford to marry four wives nor are all Muslim women happy with having their husbands have other wives. So we certainly aren't running out of women any time soon.

Secondly if someone is frustrated enough sexually, like some of those people in prison or in places like Saudi due to the restrictions they are under then of course some would commit gay sex.

But also like people in prisons, it doesn't mean however that ALL will do it.

It's a small minority.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:

Either way it only applies with four witnesses and if someone is so blatantly arrogant to actually do it in public in an Islamic State like that then it serves them right. I don't believe this issue of four witnesses actually protects people. Surely if someone is committing a crime, then it should be investigated. The idea that something is illegal, but it is also illegal to try to prove it, is absurd. I suspect you are misrepresenting the Koran there. Yes it may protect against the theocracy going into everyone's bedroom, but once people become suspicious of gays it is inevitable that they will be rooted out. Whether this happens according to the Koran or not is irrelevant. It is human nature. If you make gay sex illegal, people will investigate it.

First of all, accusing someone of misrepresenting the Qur'an is a very serious charge, I certainly am not doing it and don't appreciate being accused of it, especially by someone with as little understanding of Islam as you have..

Of course crimes should be investigated. But you aren't allowed to go into someone's home and spy on them to see if they are gay in Islam.

That WOULD be illegal and against Islam and God has been very specific about this type of behaviour:

049.012
O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it...But fear Allah: For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.

As you see it not only is it a sin, but it's comparable to eating the flesh off of your brothers back.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:

Just the same as if I blatantly break the law in this country in public and arrogantly expect no one to do anything about it the punishment I get would definitely be deserving. Right, but here it is legal to have gay sex with four people watching. You are misrepresenting the four witnesses part. Just because in modern society it would be hard to get four witnesses to a private act does not mean it would never happen. Even today there are lots of people who cannot afford privacy. For example, to homeless gay men may make reasonable effort to hide their acts from public, but eventually some group of people is going to bust them. In muhammed's time, few people would have ahd that sort of privacy ensured. I don't believe it is restricted to stopping people having sex in full view of everyone else, neither in practice nor in intent. Do the four witnesses have to witness it at the same time?

Of course it's legal to have gay sex in front of 4 people here but we're not talking about Australia, we are talking about in an Islamic State, last I checked Australia isn't.

This just further shows your lack of understanding.. You seem to be making alot of assumptions regarding Islam without the actual knowledge of Islam to back it up I'm afraid. People did have their own privacy at Muhammad pbuh's time.

You need four witnesses to witness the same event from my understanding, unless the person who committed the crime testafies against themself four times.

BTW, I researched the topic of punishment for unmarried people having gay sex and I am correct in saying the death by stoning penalty only applies to married people.

Not all men can afford to marry four wives nor are all Muslim women happy with having their husbands have other wives. So we certainly aren't running out of women any time soon.

Sure you are. It only takes a small number of men to take one extra wife, and then for every extra wife, you end up with an extra man going without. That's why you said so many men are not worthy of marriage.

Secondly if someone is frustrated enough sexually, like some of those people in prison or in places like Saudi due to the restrictions they are under then of course some would commit gay sex.

Only the gay ones. The straight ones masturbate. Some men get raped in jail, which is probably what you are thinking of. That has nothing to do with sexual gratification.

First of all, accusing someone of misrepresenting the Qur'an is a very serious charge

Not to me. And besides, you accuse others of it all the time. I think that you are wrong and that the witness issue is to guard against injustice. It is not to tacitly endorse gay sex provided you don't do it on the street. I don't think it offers any real protection to gays at all.

But you aren't allowed to go into someone's home and spy on them to see if they are gay in Islam.

So you determine whether they are gay some other way, then the intrusion is merely to gather evidence. Obviously you won't be spying on people randomly to find the gay ones.

As you see it not only is it a sin, but it's comparable to eating the flesh off of your brothers back.

That quote didn't mention anything about anyone's back.

Also, does it mean that Islam forbids undercover detective work, binoculars, etc in the pursuit of all crimes, like drug dealing, murder etc?

Of course it's legal to have gay sex in front of 4 people here but we're not talking about Australia

Yes we are talking about Australia. See the thread title. You said yourself you would like Australia to become an Islamic state one day. You even said you would vote for it.

People did have their own privacy at Muhammad pbuh's time.

What if your brother sounded like he was having a heart attack in his tent, or was being attacked by a handsome stranger? What happens if the four of you lift the tent flap to see if he is OK, only to find that the handsome stranger is not attacking him, but is having consensual sex with him?

You need four witnesses to witness the same event from my understanding, unless the person who committed the crime testafies against themself four times.

Does that need to be all at once? Or can four people witness a person having gay sex on four different occasions, then get him executed?

BTW, I researched the topic of punishment for unmarried people having gay sex and I am correct in saying the death by stoning penalty only applies to married people.

What if married people have extramarital 'straight' sex. Is the punishment the same regardless of orientation, or the sex of the cheating partner? If you cheat with someone who isn't married, do both the married and unmarried party get the same punishment?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 2:43pm:

re: fornication - I think Malik mentioned this. Is it the same punishment regardless of the sexual orientation? That is, if two straight people has sex before they were married, would they get 100 lashes? Could they avoid the punishment by getting married?

100 lashes regardless of whether they have sex with their own sex or the opposite sex.

The people should be married BEFORE having sex, if they are not married then they are liable to get the 100 lashes. However this, like all punishments require a Qadi (Judge) to ensure that the person has had every opportunity to get married and had the finances to do so. It has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the fornicators had intentionally not gotten married when they were able to.

If this isn't the case then the lashes might not be applicable because the Islamic State has failed it's citizen in not providing adequate ability for people to get married.



freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 2:43pm:

What is the penalty for extramarital sex?

Adultery is death by stoning and fornication is 100 lashes

What is the penalty for a woman who uncovers more than her face and hands? Are there any similar restrictions on men? Are children free of all clothing restrictions?
[/quote]
I'm not aware of a penalty for that, but if there is it would be as applicable for men as it is for women. ie men have certain criteria of covering too.

Children are free from clothing restrictions within reason. A girl who has not reached puberty doesn't have to cover everything but the hands and face.

Is this correct?

* Theocracy: Islam requires establishment of theocracy, but not by force. In Australia, muslims would presumably only act if they gained some power as a voting block, at which point they would set about dismantling the separation of church and state, turning Australia into a theocracy, and if the opportunity arose, making Australia part of a new Caliphate.

* Adultery: The penalty for adultery (extramarital sex) is death by stoning. The penalty is the same for both parties, even if one is not married.

* Fornication: The penalty for fornication (premarital sex) is 100 lashes. The penalty may be waived if the fornicators were not given the opportunity to marry before sex (eg because they couldn't afford it).

* Homosexuality: The penalty is the same as for adultery or fornication, depending on whether you are married. This would only take place once Australia became a theocracy. Very few gays would actually be executed because apparently homosexuality simply disappears under Islam. That is, it is not driven underground by the death penalty, rather men just stop having sex with each other because they are Muslims. Four witnesses are necessary to secure a conviction and punishment. They can witness the act in a serial manner.

* Age of consent: If there's grass on the wicket, it's time to play cricket. The penalty for sex with a prepubescent child is death by stoning.

* Polygamy: A man may have up to four wives. A woman may have only one husband. She only needs one, as he provides whatever she needs. A Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife. A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man.

* Clothing: A woman must cover everything except her face and hands. Her clothes must not be too tight fitting, in case her figure can be made out. Penalty????

Can a Muslim man take an atheist wife?

What is the penalty for gambling?

What is the penalty for theft?

What other things are legal in Australia but illegal under Islamic law?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

Not all men can afford to marry four wives nor are all Muslim women happy with having their husbands have other wives. So we certainly aren't running out of women any time soon. Sure you are. It only takes a small number of men to take one extra wife, and then for every extra wife, you end up with an extra man going without. That's why you said so many men are not worthy of marriage.

I'm sorry, tell me again in detail the reason I said that many men are not worthy of marriage?


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

Secondly if someone is frustrated enough sexually, like some of those people in prison or in places like Saudi due to the restrictions they are under then of course some would commit gay sex. Only the gay ones. The straight ones masturbate. Some men get raped in jail, which is probably what you are thinking of. That has nothing to do with sexual gratification.

You're in fantasy land if you believe that mate.

Those "gay" inmates come out of prison and are completely straight.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

First of all, accusing someone of misrepresenting the Qur'an is a very serious charge Not to me. And besides, you accuse others of it all the time. I think that you are wrong and that the witness issue is to guard against injustice. It is not to tacitly endorse gay sex provided you don't do it on the street. I don't think it offers any real protection to gays at all.

Yes of course I accuse people like Sprint of misrepresenting the Qur'an, because I at least have read it and understand Islam. For you to accuse me of misrepresenting is ridiculous because you don't even know enough about Islam to know what is misrepresenting or not.

Of course it's to guard against injustice. And I also didn't say the law is made to endorse gay sex in one's own privacy.

It's still forbidden either way.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

But you aren't allowed to go into someone's home and spy on them to see if they are gay in Islam. So you determine whether they are gay some other way, then the intrusion is merely to gather evidence. Obviously you won't be spying on people randomly to find the gay ones.

How would you prove that they had gay sex with another person that way? If only going inside their house to collect evidence.

Can you give an example?



freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

As you see it not only is it a sin, but it's comparable to eating the flesh off of your brothers back. That quote didn't mention anything about anyone's back. Also, does it mean that Islam forbids undercover detective work, binoculars, etc in the pursuit of all crimes, like drug dealing, murder etc?

It's eating the skin of your dead brother, take the skin from where you want mate..

And yes, there is the ability to do undercover detective work.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

Of course it's legal to have gay sex in front of 4 people here but we're not talking about Australia Yes we are talking about Australia. See the thread title. You said yourself you would like Australia to become an Islamic state one day. You even said you would vote for it.

Ok, so your asking IF Australia was an Islamic State. Well the same laws apply to any Islamic State.



freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

People did have their own privacy at Muhammad pbuh's time. What if your brother sounded like he was having a heart attack in his tent, or was being attacked by a handsome stranger? What happens if the four of you lift the tent flap to see if he is OK, only to find that the handsome stranger is not attacking him, but is having consensual sex with him?

Then if my brother is married, he will be brought before a court and if the witnesses are there then he will be stoned to death.

If he is not married, he will recieve 100 lashes.



freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

You need four witnesses to witness the same event from my understanding, unless the person who committed the crime testafies against themself four times. Does that need to be all at once? Or can four people witness a person having gay sex on four different occasions, then get him executed?

They'd have all had to witness the same event occur.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

BTW, I researched the topic of punishment for unmarried people having gay sex and I am correct in saying the death by stoning penalty only applies to married people. What if married people have extramarital 'straight' sex. Is the punishment the same regardless of orientation, or the sex of the cheating partner? If you cheat with someone who isn't married, do both the married and unmarried party get the same punishment?

No, the person who is not cheating will get 100 lashes and the one who is will be stoned to death.

How would you prove that they had gay sex with another person that way?

Well, normally law enforcement must make a case of reasonable suspicion before an invasion of privacy is justified. As I have no problem with gay sex, I have not put any thought into how you would enforce such a silly law. But just as an example, a single witness may not be sufficient to obtain a conviction, but it would certainly be enough to launch an investigation. Likewise, if some man reported an attempt by another man to seduce him, that would also be grounds. It's pretty hard to hide the fact that you are gay.

And yes, there is the ability to do undercover detective work.

So how does it work that 'thou shalt not spy' prevents Muslims from investigating gay sex allegations but not other crimes?Why wouldn't they just use the same techniques they use elsewhere?

Ok, so your asking IF Australia was an Islamic State.

Actually, I'm, asking what laws and social changes you would like to see here. Obviously, an Islamic state is part of that.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Is this correct? * Theocracy: Islam requires establishment of theocracy, but not by force. In Australia, muslims would presumably only act if they gained some power as a voting block, at which point they would set about dismantling the separation of church and state, turning Australia into a theocracy, and if the opportunity arose, making Australia part of a new Caliphate.

That depends on whether the Muslims want to live in a theocracy or not I'd assume.

Muslims don't all act as one organism which is controlled from one mind. Some would vote for it others wouldn't..

In my opinion a Muslim should vote for it and would be obligated to, but there is a difference of opinion on the matter.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Is this correct? * Adultery: The penalty for adultery (extramarital sex) is death by stoning. The penalty is the same for both parties, even if one is not married.

Not correct, the one who isn't married gets lashed. The one who is gets death penalty by stoning.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Is this correct? * Fornication: The penalty for fornication (premarital sex) is 100 lashes. The penalty may be waived if the fornicators were not given the opportunity to marry before sex (eg because they couldn't afford it).

Yes sounds correct. Providing that witnesses have been provided.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Is this correct?

* Homosexuality: The penalty is the same as for adultery or fornication, depending on whether you are married. This would only take place once Australia became a theocracy. Very few gays would actually be executed because apparently homosexuality simply disappears under Islam. That is, it is not driven underground by the death penalty, rather men just stop having sex with each other because they are Muslims. Four witnesses are necessary to secure a conviction and punishment. They can witness the act in a serial manner.
[/quote]
Yes, all witnessing the same act. I personally don't believe the notion that people who are Muslim would never partake in a homosexual act.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Is this correct? * Age of consent: If there's grass on the wicket, it's time to play cricket. The penalty for sex with a prepubescent child is death by stoning.

I think this really depends on mental state as well as their body FD, for example if we tried to apply the above in Australia it wouldn't work because in Australia people don't really gain maturity until they are older. In other places and in olden times people grew up quicker because more responsibility was put on them. But here it's not the same.  

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Is this correct? * Polygamy: A man may have up to four wives. A woman may have only one husband. She only needs one, as he provides whatever she needs. A Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife. A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man.

Yes

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Is this correct? * Clothing: A woman must cover everything except her face and hands. Her clothes must not be too tight fitting, in case her figure can be made out. Penalty????

I don't really know what penalty there is, perhaps a fine or something would be applied.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Is this correct? Can a Muslim man take an atheist wife?

No

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Is this correct? What is the penalty for gambling?

I'm not sure sorry.. I'll check up for you.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Is this correct? What is the penalty for theft?

Depends what they steal, again it's subject to the rules of judgement as any western judge would have. If they are stealing to provide food for their family it means that they really were compelled to do it. Thus the state failed to ensure it's citizens had the ability to look after themselves.

If the person is stealing just because thats how they want to live their life and it's serious enough they may have their hand cut off.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Is this correct? What other things are legal in Australia but illegal under Islamic law?

I'll have a think about it.

In my opinion a Muslim should vote for it and would be obligated to, but there is a difference of opinion on the matter.

Can you elaborate on this please? What are the different views and justifications?

I think this really depends on mental state as well as their body FD, for example if we tried to apply the above in Australia it wouldn't work because in Australia people don't really gain maturity until they are older. In other places and in olden times people grew up quicker because more responsibility was put on them. But here it's not the same.

So how does Islam define maturity? I think Abu considers it to be onset of puberty.

Is a Muslim man restricted to marrying women from 'Abrahamic' religions?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 7:22pm:

How would you prove that they had gay sex with another person that way? Well, normally law enforcement must make a case of reasonable suspicion before an invasion of privacy is justified. As I have no problem with gay sex, I have not put any thought into how you would enforce such a silly law. But just as an example, a single witness may not be sufficient to obtain a conviction, but it would certainly be enough to launch an investigation. Likewise, if some man reported an attempt by another man to seduce him, that would also be grounds. It's pretty hard to hide the fact that you are gay. And yes, there is the ability to do undercover detective work. So how does it work that 'thou shalt not spy' prevents Muslims from investigating gay sex allegations but not other crimes?Why wouldn't they just use the same techniques they use elsewhere?

From my understanding it's based upon the danger to society FD. If the person is having gay orgies at their house and there is enough reasonable suspicion to be sure of it, I'm sure they'd do a raid when they think it's occuring and catch them in the act.

If it's one person just doing it with another I highly doubt any police would try catch them do it because they wouldn't find out about it.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 7:22pm:

Ok, so your asking IF Australia was an Islamic State. Actually, I'm, asking what laws and social changes you would like to see here. Obviously, an Islamic state is part of that.

You do also know that Islamic law only applies to Muslims right? Christians and Jews would be judged under their own religious laws and not ours.

I think there would also be some kind of civil law aswell which would be for things which aren't covered by religious law.

Well here is a surprise, Malik and his Islamic teachings are once again diametrically opposed to the facts.

People mature earlier now, with some females getting their period before they are even 10.

In earlier days, menstruation rarely came before a girl was 15, in the time of mohammed, 15 to 18 was the range of ages when menstruation was likely to start.

The age has been coming down, with a large fall in age, beginning from the time of the industrial revolution, improved diet, may be contributing to this effect.

The average age is now under 13.

So Malik, want to try again?

Read a bit of the 100 lashes for a variety of sexual "crimes" in an islamic country (that does not exist).

What about for a masochist ?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 7:37pm:

In my opinion a Muslim should vote for it and would be obligated to, but there is a difference of opinion on the matter. Can you elaborate on this please? What are the different views and justifications?

In a future post I will.. sorry I need to get more info for you and I'm busy with some preparations


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 7:37pm:

I think this really depends on mental state as well as their body FD, for example if we tried to apply the above in Australia it wouldn't work because in Australia people don't really gain maturity until they are older. In other places and in olden times people grew up quicker because more responsibility was put on them. But here it's not the same. So how does Islam define maturity? I think Abu considers it to be onset of puberty.

If we were to apply it here, I believe there would be a legal age to marry without parent's consent and a legal age to marry with either a judges or parents consent.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 7:37pm:

Is a Muslim man restricted to marrying women from 'Abrahamic' religions?

Yes

mozzaok wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 7:49pm:

Well here is a surprise, Malik and his Islamic teachings are once again diametrically opposed to the facts. People mature earlier now, with some females getting their period before they are even 10. In earlier days, menstruation rarely came before a girl was 15, in the time of mohammed, 15 to 18 was the range of ages when menstruation was likely to start. The age has been coming down, with a large fall in age, beginning from the time of the industrial revolution, improved diet, may be contributing to this effect. The average age is now under 13. So Malik, want to try again?

That isn't true at all.

Mary had Jesus when she was about 13 years old, meaning she obviously started mensturating at the age of about 12.

In addition to that it depends where you live. In harsh places like the desert people tend to menstruate earlier.

Are Muslims free to change their religion under Shariah Law? What is the penalty if a woman became an atheist and married an atheist man?


Quote:

You do also know that Islamic law only applies to Muslims right? Christians and Jews would be judged under their own religious laws and not ours. I think there would also be some kind of civil law aswell which would be for things which aren't covered by religious law.

So let's say the homosexual who was arrested then said that he was no longer a Muslim, would they allow him to walk free?

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 7:26pm:

I personally don't believe the notion that people who are Muslim would never partake in a homosexual act.

Neither do I. In fact I knew several practicing Muslims in Indonesia who were gay.

muso wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 8:44pm:

Are Muslims free to change their religion under Shariah Law? What is the penalty if a woman became an atheist and married an atheist man? So let's say the homosexual who was arrested then said that he was no longer a Muslim, would they allow him to walk free?

There's no compulsion to religion in Islam, if she left Islam and married an athiest I'd be surprised if anything could actually be done about it.

Contrary to popular belief, In Islam, apostasy doesn't equal death.

You do also know that Islamic law only applies to Muslims right? Christians and Jews would be judged under their own religious laws and not ours.

And what about atheists? What about Christians and Jews who want to live under secular law? Wouldn't people 'forum shop' and change their religion depending on the crime?

People mature earlier now, with some females getting their period before they are even 10.

In earlier days, menstruation rarely came before a girl was 15, in the time of mohammed, 15 to 18 was the range of ages when menstruation was likely to start.

Can you back that up Mozz? I thought there was only a very recent trend towards earlier maturation due to the use of hormones in agriculture, but the bulk of the trend was for later maturation, due to better nutrition, health etc.

Now you are just being a bullshitartist Malik.
Under sharia law, death is exactly what apostasy means, and what is worse, you very well know it, but are prepared to lie about it, in your attempt to not show Islam in a bad light.

Also you keep crapping on about how old mary was, and I have to ask how the hell would you know?

There are no historical records of jesus' life at all, let alone his mothers, so how the hell do you come up with these arguments, and then state them as if it were something you actually knew, rather than the unsubstantiated tales, from unreliable sources, that they are actually based on?

I have to assume it is because of the attacks on mohammed's sexual predilections, which were once accepted by all muslims, but now accounts are being revised by apologists who do not wish to have those unacceptable behaviours, by modern standards, associated with Islam.
Not content to try and rewrite their own history, they seek to smear the historical beliefs of opposing religions, with totally baseless garbage.

That is some moral code your religion has given you.

I would prefer the decency of an honest homosexual, or of a sexually active unmarried woman, over the deceitfulness of a pious apologist, who refuse to let truth impair his zealotry.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 9:06pm:

You do also know that Islamic law only applies to Muslims right? Christians and Jews would be judged under their own religious laws and not ours. And what about atheists? What about Christians and Jews who want to live under secular law? Wouldn't people 'forum shop' and change their religion depending on the crime?

That's a good question regarding athiests, it's something I'm still studying into. There would of course be civic law too which needed to be stuck to by the citizenry, Islamic law would apply to Muslims, Jewish law to Jews and Christian law to Christians..

Although I think you would find that the Christian and Jewish punishment for apostasy is death.

What stops people from continuously changing religions to suit their own needs is their fear of God. A true Christian, Jew or Muslim would not change religion for such purposes because they'd fear the wrath of God too much. The punishment in this life is nothing compared to that of the next life.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 9:06pm:

People mature earlier now, with some females getting their period before they are even 10. In earlier days, menstruation rarely came before a girl was 15, in the time of mohammed, 15 to 18 was the range of ages when menstruation was likely to start. Can you back that up Mozz? I thought there was only a very recent trend towards earlier maturation due to the use of hormones in agriculture, but the bulk of the trend was for later maturation, due to better nutrition, health etc.

Yeah that's right FD, it has gotten later.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 9:06pm:

You do also know that Islamic law only applies to Muslims right? Christians and Jews would be judged under their own religious laws and not ours. And what about atheists? What about Christians and Jews who want to live under secular law? Wouldn't people 'forum shop' and change their religion depending on the crime? People mature earlier now, with some females getting their period before they are even 10. In earlier days, menstruation rarely came before a girl was 15, in the time of mohammed, 15 to 18 was the range of ages when menstruation was likely to start. Can you back that up Mozz? I thought there was only a very recent trend towards earlier maturation due to the use of hormones in agriculture, but the bulk of the trend was for later maturation, due to better nutrition, health etc.

I do not have a source at hand, I saw it being discussed by scientists on the telly, when the average age in the UK fell to 12 years and 10 months, from memory.

They stated how in biblical times menstruation was much later, 15 to 18, and the age declined slowly until the 19th century when we saw it drop from about 14and a half to 13 and a half.

You could probably wiki something, or do a search of BBC articles, to find the show in question.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 9:14pm:

Now you are just being a bullshitartist Malik. Under sharia law, death is exactly what apostasy means, and what is worse, you very well know it, but are prepared to lie about it, in your attempt to not show Islam in a bad light.

No, it doesn't actually.

Islamic law dictates that if a person leaves Islam then it is their choice, if however they leave Islam and go to war against the hate or incite violence against the state then that is the death penalty too. That is the punishment for treason, not for apostacy.



mozzaok wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 9:14pm:

Also you keep crapping on about how old mary was, and I have to ask how the hell would you know? There are no historical records of jesus' life at all, let alone his mothers, so how the hell do you come up with these arguments, and then state them as if it were something you actually knew, rather than the unsubstantiated tales, from unreliable sources, that they are actually based on?

Catholic Encyclopedia quotes it being in the apocryphal writings actually.



mozzaok wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 9:14pm:

I have to assume it is because of the attacks on mohammed's sexual predilections, which were once accepted by all muslims, but now accounts are being revised by apologists who do not wish to have those unacceptable behaviours, by modern standards, associated with Islam. Not content to try and rewrite their own history, they seek to smear the historical beliefs of opposing religions, with totally baseless garbage.

It's not baseless at all.

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."



http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html#009.084.058

Sprint would you mind including the link as well when you copy and paste?

Yes Sprint, those are all hadiths from the right source (for once) but what your missing is the fact that when these people had left Islam, they openly went out and waged war against the State, thus making them guilty of treason.

It's not because they left Islam that they were executed but because of the treason.

The second of the two quotes looks very much like death for apostasy to me Malik.

Also, should it have included pedophilia?

This is not an Aussie value.
It is from the UAE. A muslim country.



"Arab royals accused of enslaving 17 women  From correspondents in Brussels
July 04, 2008 12:52am

SEVENTEEN women have been taken by police from a luxury hotel in Brussels amid allegations they had been enslaved by an Arab royal family.

The women were freed from one of Europe's most stylish hotels, where they claimed they were being kept captive to wait hand and foot on a royal heiress and four princesses.

The women were allegedly held captive for eight months by the widow of an emir from the United Arab Emirates and her daughters, The Australian reports.

The family had hired the entire fourth floor of the exclusive Conrad Hotel in Brussels, according to reports in Belgium yesterday.

In scenes described by onlookers as pure Hollywood, dozens of police raided the hotel, in the chic Avenue Louise, after one of the slaves managed to escape and raise the alarm.

In the luxury rooms, each costing up to E300 ($500) a night, they found women from countries including The Philippines, Morocco, India, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq and Syria.

The women claimed they were kept as prisoners and forced to work as cleaners, servants and cooks, after their passports were taken away. Two of the slaves staged a breakout last week but one was quickly recaptured by the family's bodyguards at the city airport, according to an agency that represents immigrants and is helping the women.

They claimed they were paid less than E150 each a month and had to be on call 24 hours a day.

The Belgian Labour Audit Authority was investigating whether the women were victims of human trafficking, brought to Belgium to work for their royal mistresses.

The freed women are being housed in local government accommodation centres.

The Conrad prides itself as the most exclusive hotel in Brussels, a city not short on luxury accommodation. Its basic rooms are described as the largest in the Belgian capital and "offer calm and total tranquillity" and the "highest levels of comfort".

According to the hotel's publicity, the premium guest rooms "give you the familiar feeling of simply being at home".


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23967010-954,00.html

freediver,


Quote:

In Australia, muslims would presumably only act if they gained some power as a voting block

Islam forbids voting in democratic elections. Even though some Muslims do participate in this activity, it is generally out of ignorance.


Quote:

Can a Muslim man take an atheist wife?

No. Muslim, Christian or Jewish only.


Quote:

What other things are legal in Australia but illegal under Islamic law?

How about some things that are legal under Islam and illegal in Australia?
After all, isn't it meant to be a wiki entry about the differences between Australian and Islamic values? Or is it really just "Lets find all stuf about  Islam that we find barbaric or out of touch and post it here to mock Islam", if that's what you want to do, then make the title more relevant to what it is you're actually doing.

My participation in this discussion is ceasing from this post, you are not even worth discussing this with.

Islam doesn't allow that behaviour, that's the problem with just picking and choosing hadiths, you don't get the full picture and context about the situations it talks about. Apostasy is not punishable by death, it will be punished in the next life by God.

If you force people to stay Muslim by threatening them with death if they leave it will mean they will become hypocrites and not really believe, that is far worse for the community than people who have openly changed religion, at least you know where they stand.

Below is a fatwa on the issue.



Quote:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1141277529583 Title Should an Apostate Be Put to Death? Question Respected scholars, as-salamu `alaykum. Is it true that in Islam a person must be put to death if he or she converts to another religion? Jazakum Allahu khayran. Date 27/Mar/2006 Name of Counsellor Ahmad Kutty Topic Apostasy Answer Wa`alaykum as-salamu wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. Dear brother in Islam, thanks a lot for your question, which reflects your care to have a clear view of the teachings of Islam. Allah commands Muslims to refer to knowledgeable people to learn more about the teachings of Islam. It is absurd for anyone to suggest that Islam advocates killing people who choose to leave Islam. To kill anyone who chooses to follow a religion other than Islam is against the fundamental teachings of the Qur'an. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental principle of the Qur'an that is clearly stated. Thus, if apostates cause no harm to the Muslim community and do not call for spreading hostility towards Islam, they should not to be punished; rather they should be advised kindly and wisely to learn the truth about Islam. In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states the following: Freedom of conscience is one of the fundamental rights of humans enshrined in the Qur'an; it is therefore, absurd for anyone to suggest that Islam allows putting people to death just because they convert to another religion. Even a casual reader of the Qur'an will not fail to be impressed by its emphasis on the freedom of conscience as a cornerstone of its moral structure. To cite a few verses as follows: [There shall be no compulsion in religion. Distinct has now become the right way from [the wayof] error: hence, he who rejects the powers of evil and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing] ( Al-Baqarah 2:256) [If it had been your Lord's will, all who are in the earth would have believed. Will you, then, force the people to become believers?] (Yunus 10:99) [And if they surrender themselves unto Him (i.e. God), they are on the right path; but if they turn away – behold, thy duty (O Muhammad,) is no more than to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His creatures.] (Aal `Imran 3:20) [Hence, pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Messenger, and be ever on your guard [against evil]; and if you turn away, then know that Our Messenger's only duty is a clear delivery of the message [entrusted to him].] (Al-Ma'idah 5:92) [But if they turn away [from thee, O Prophet, know that] Wehave not sent thee to be their keeper: thou art not bound to do more than deliver the message [entrusted to thee] .] (Ash-Shura 42:48) I should further state that all of the moral teachings of the Qur'an are based on the notion of moral responsibility, which entails the freedom of choice. Therefore, to state that one must be put to death for choosing to disbelieve would only undermine the entire moral edifice of the Qur'an. Furthermore, the Qur'an does not allow anyone to harm those who are leaving in peace, no matter what religion they hold on to. This principle has been clearly stated in the Qur'an as follows: [Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.] (An-Nisaa' 4:90) In pursuance of this policy, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) issued clear directives to his soldiers never to disturb those who are engaged in any form of worship. The policy of living and letting others to live is firmly enshrined in the following verses: [Say: O disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship, Nordo you worship what I worship.. to you your religion, and to me, mine.] (Al-Kafirun 109:1-3, 6) In full conformity with the above teachings, neither the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) nor any of the four rightly guided caliphs who succeeded him were in the habit of hunting down people and executing them for merely changing their religions. Rather, they refrained from doing so except in rare cases involving treason. Treason, however, is another matter. The punishment for treason in the Qur'an is as strict as it is in the Hebrew Bible. But it must never be confused with mere change of religion. In conclusion, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that Islam advocates killing people who covert to another religion.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 10:32pm:

This is not an Aussie value. It is from the UAE. A muslim country. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23967010-954,00.html

What do you expect from people who claim to be kings?

This type of behaviour is forbidden in Islam and they clearly think that they are above Islamic law.

malik - most kings are very good for their people and well loved by them.

Most kings feel responsible for their people, not that they were "born perfect" and are a "superior belief system."

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 10:42pm:

malik - most kings are very good for their people and well loved by them. Most kings feel responsible for their people, not that they were "born perfect" and are a "superior belief system."

Oh, so you don't believe in democracy.. Sorry I thought you did.

If kings were loved so much how come the US colonies rebelled against the king of england, or how come the french rebelled against their monarchy?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

back to the topic.

seems murdering those that leave islam is a direction.
many other muslims have justified this stance to me.
Want their reasons?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 11:22pm:

back to the topic. seems murdering those that leave islam is a direction. many other muslims have justified this stance to me. Want their reasons?

Not really, just becauase a Muslim states something is the appropriate way it doesn't necessarily make it a teaching of Islam. The problem lays with peoples lack of any ability to look at context when forming an opinion.

Those hadiths don't fit with what the Qur'an says, so that's even more of a reason why it's important to look at the context behind them instead of taking them at face value and be black and white to mean if someone becomes an apostate you should kill them. The problem lays with your inability to see that. That's why I said you'd be a great wahabi because they have the same problem.

as I have said before,

the wahabis have had this "misinterperetation for many generations.
What's say the non-wahabis show them where they are wrong ?

Yes, it is that simple.

there are korans quotes that support that mindset
Just as a hyperthetical, what if the wahabis proved they were right, and you wrong ?
What would you do ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 12:10am:

as I have said before, the wahabis have had this "misinterperetation for many generations. What's say the non-wahabis show them where they are wrong ? Yes, it is that simple. there are korans quotes that support that mindset Just as a hyperthetical, what if the wahabis proved they were right, and you wrong ? What would you do ?

It's a hypothetical which wont happen because they ARE wrong.

They have been shown that they are wrong, but they have this idea that if you disagree with them that you are not a Muslim and they can kill you.

So they did that in the middle east, alot..

They are crazy and the reason they are still in power and have influence is because the West supports their governments.

Stop supporting wahabis and you'll see an end to groups like Al Qaeda.

Quote:

as I have said before, the wahabis have had this "misinterperetation for many generations. What's say the non-wahabis show them where they are wrong ? Yes, it is that simple. there are korans quotes that support that mindset Just as a hyperthetical, what if the wahabis proved they were right, and you wrong ? What would you do ? It's a hypothetical which wont happen because they ARE wrong. They have been shown that they are wrong, but they have this idea that if you disagree with them that you are not a Muslim and they can kill you. So they did that in the middle east, alot.. They are crazy and the reason they are still in power and have influence is because the West supports their governments. Stop supporting wahabis and you'll see an end to groups like Al Qaeda.

Unwilling to answer the hyperthetical in public ??
Their response is in keeping with the quotes I have given here.
Thanks for your vote malik, it follows on from your one of your previous comments that mohammad means the most in your life.
It follows from that that whatever he says, you would slavishly do.

If someone proves to you he said to hehead us infidels, you would do that.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 12:33am:

Unwilling to answer the hyperthetical in public ?? Their response is in keeping with the quotes I have given here. Thanks for your vote malik, it follows on from your one of your previous comments that mohammad means the most in your life. It follows from that that whatever he says, you would slavishly do. If someone proves to you he said to hehead us infidels, you would do that.

Sprint, what if Jesus said to kill all people who weren't Christian, would you do it? would you cut their heads off? Would you drink their blood if he told you to?

Answer that..

Answer my question first

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 12:59am:

Answer my question first

haha, typical..

you again fail to judge your own religion by the standards you try and judge islam by.

so what will happen sprint, if jesus said to drink blood of non believers, if he ordered u to behead them?

would you do it?

well God ordered something similar in the old testament, to cut children into pieces and rip the wombs out of pregnant women killing them and their unborn children brutally..

You believe Jesus is God right? So then obviously according to your own beliefs it was Jesus who ordered that those babies be murdered..

so do you do any baby murdering sprint this weekend? you killing any pregnant ladies?

I think we have the happy circumstance of muslims being able to lie their head off for allah.
The convenient little code which tells them they only need to be honest to muslims, and with 90% calling the others "not real muslims", it seems they can pretty well crap on all day without any fear of damnation for being bald faced liars.

Malik has unconvincingly pushed the lie that sharia law does not call for the death penalty for apostates, are we merely getting the version of lie reserved for unbelievers??

I guess we will have to decide that for ourselves, because we could not rely on the response with any confidence.

Here is a little from a UK paper;
"Patrick Sookhdeo was born a Muslim, but later converted to Christianity. He is now international director of the Barnabas Fund, an organisation that aims to research and to ameliorate the conditions of Christians living in countries hostile to their religion.

He notes that "all four schools of Sunni law, as well as the Shia variety, call for the death penalty for apostates. Most Muslim scholars say that Muslim religious law - sharia - requires the death penalty for apostasy.

"In 2004, Prince Charles called a meeting of leading Muslims to discuss the issue," adds Dr Sookhdeo. "I was there. All the Muslim leaders at that meeting agreed that the penalty in sharia is death. The hope was that they would issue a public declaration repudiating that doctrine, but not one of them did."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571970/Muslim-apostates-threatened-over-Christianity.html

Abu:

Islam forbids voting in democratic elections. Even though some Muslims do participate in this activity, it is generally out of ignorance.

Didn't either you or Malik say that they elected rulers in the Caliphate and that there were provisions for this in the Koran? How would Muslims establish a theocracy if not by force and not by democracy? How exactly should Muslims go about establishing a theocracy and a new Caliphate. How do they stop the inevitable - that power mongers who are not true to Islam try to usurp control?

Can you quote the bit from the Koran that forbids elections?

How about some things that are legal under Islam and illegal in Australia?
After all, isn't it meant to be a wiki entry about the differences between Australian and Islamic values? Or is it really just "Lets find all stuf about  Islam that we find barbaric or out of touch and post it here to mock Islam", if that's what you want to do, then make the title more relevant to what it is you're actually doing.

Sure, I would be interested in that, especially if it was an apparent conflict between Islam and Australian values. After all, I have already listed polygamy and sex with young girls.

My participation in this discussion is ceasing from this post, you are not even worth discussing this with.

That would be most unfortunate Abu. I feel that you have really enlightened many people about Islam and I want to give you the opportunity to explain it further. You contradicted Malik on a few issues so it will now be very hard to resolve them. This forum has really benefitted from having genuine Muslims here who can correct the misinterpretations of Islam put forward by people like sprint.

Malik:

Apostasy is not punishable by death, it will be punished in the next life by God.

Can you explain that Koran quote for us then? What does it really mean?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

How does Islam guard against this? Democracy is the only way I am aware of keeping rulers in line.



Does Islamic rule require a tax on non-Muslims?

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 10:01am:

Islam forbids voting in democratic elections. Even though some Muslims do participate in this activity, it is generally out of ignorance. Didn't either you or Malik say that they elected rulers in the Caliphate and that there were provisions for this in the Koran? How would Muslims establish a theocracy if not by force and not by democracy? How exactly should Muslims go about establishing a theocracy and a new Caliphate. How do they stop the inevitable - that power mongers who are not true to Islam try to usurp control? Can you quote the bit from the Koran that forbids elections?

That's a good point FD and you're correct, in history power mongers have usurped control, from the day the Prophet pbuh died this happened and people who shouldn't have been in charge became in charge, you see there is a difference of opinion on this issue. Some scholars say it's prohibited to vote in elections because your voting in a non muslim government, others say it's ok because you need the people who'll represent you best. In my opinion if you aren't willing to partake in democracy, you shouldn't live in one because you can't expect your government to be mind readers and cater for your needs if you don't get involved.

Also firstly that I said that if there were a referrendum on whether Australia should be an Islamic State or not I would vote for one? Well actually an election is different to a referrendum..

But an Islamic state can be set up in many ways, it can include elected officials too. I think that way is the best.

While Iran isn't an Islamic State proper they do have many aspects of an Islamic State, they also elect their prime ministers and presidents, the only people they don't elect is their Islamic leadership, the Islamic leadership is elected by a council of scholars, to ensure that they choose the person best suited to the role of guiding their congregation. But even the religious leadership is still bound by the Shariah.

Christian and Jewish leadership in the Islamic state is not appointed by the state, in fact they are chosen directly by the Christians and Jews themselves.


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 10:01am:

Malik: Apostasy is not punishable by death, it will be punished in the next life by God. Can you explain that Koran quote for us then? What does it really mean?

Which Qur'an quote was that? Can you paste it?


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 10:01am:

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. How does Islam guard against this? Democracy is the only way I am aware of keeping rulers in line.

Well actually, democracy isn't a protection from that at all either, many tyrants have been elected into government.. Look at all of the things George Bush has done after being elected, sometimes peoples apathy let democracy down.

In an Islamic State we have separation of powers the same as the west has (although we've had it for considerably longer). There were cases where people even took the caliphs to court over matters and won against the caliph. If the Caliph goes against the shariah and starts oppressing the people, they can be deposed by the courts and if the president goes against it and does similar they can be deposed by the courts and voted out by the people.  


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 10:01am:

Does Islamic rule require a tax on non-Muslims?

Yes, a small levy is imposed because Muslims are obligated to serve in the military and protect the citizens of the Islamic State, that includes non-Muslims.

Non Muslims however are not obligated to join the army, nor defend the nation in case of attack.

In the constitution of Medina it made it clear that non-Muslims who partook in defending the nation didn't have to pay the jizyah. But they weren't obligated to pay it.

In my opinion if you aren't willing to partake in democracy, you shouldn't live in one because you can't expect your government to be mind readers and cater for your needs if you don't get involved.

Is this your interpretation of the Koran, or the product of human reason?

Some scholars say it's prohibited to vote in elections because your voting in a non muslim government

Is that the extent of it? There is nothing against democracy in the Koran, just against voting for someone who isn't a muslim?

Also firstly that I said that if there were a referrendum on whether Australia should be an Islamic State or not I would vote for one? Well actually an election is different to a referrendum..

It is a vote. Would it make any difference whether you achieved your goals via election or referendum? What distinction are you trying to make?

But an Islamic state can be set up in many ways, it can include elected officials too. I think that way is the best.

Would you support any alternative mechanisms?

While Iran isn't an Islamic State proper they do have many aspects of an Islamic State, they also elect their prime ministers and presidents, the only people they don't elect is their Islamic leadership, the Islamic leadership is elected by a council of scholars, to ensure that they choose the person best suited to the role of guiding their congregation.

So in a proper Islamic state that Islamic leadership would run everything?

Which Qur'an quote was that? Can you paste it?

Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html#009.084.058

Well actually, democracy isn't a protection from that at all either, many tyrants have been elected into government..

It's the best protection available, provided it is coupled with things like separation of church and state, personal freedom, human rights etc.

In an Islamic State we have separation of powers the same as the west has (although we've had it for considerably longer). There were cases where people even took the caliphs to court over matters and won against the caliph. If the Caliph goes against the shariah and starts oppressing the people, they can be deposed by the courts and if the president goes against it and does similar they can be deposed by the courts and voted out by the people.

Who selects the Caliph, or president?

Yes, a small levy is imposed because Muslims are obligated to serve in the military and protect the citizens of the Islamic State, that includes non-Muslims.

Like in Israel, there is a compulsory period of military service? How do they decide how much the tax is?

Against my better judgement I'm resuming posting in this thread...


Quote:

Didn't either you or Malik say that they elected rulers in the Caliphate and that there were provisions for this in the Koran?

Note that I said forbidden from partaking in democratic elections. As I mentioned earlier, democracy doesn't mean electing your leader, democracy means human beings legislating right and wrong from their own minds. As far as I'm aware the word "republic" describes the system by which the leader is popularly elected to represent the people. Islam has no problem with a republican model of electing a leader, but when it comes to human beings legislating, the Qur'an and hadith are quite clear.

"And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, such are disbelievers" (5:44)

Also from the hadith we have the story of Adi Bin Hatim (May God be pleased with him) who came upon a gathering around the Messenger of God (Pbuh) and heard him saying the Jews and Christians had stooped into polytheism. He interjected and noted that even though the Christians had done this, the Jews had not. So Muhammad (Pbuh) said that their Priests and Rabbis make right and wrong for them from their own minds, and the people follow it, and that is worship of them, instead of God.

Basically what it comes down is that one of God's 99 attributes/names according to Islam is Al-Haakim (The Legislator). And he is the sole being worthy of legislating, so anyone who competes with him in this matter is considered to be a false god, and anyone who subscribes to that legislation is a worshipper of a false god, ie. a polytheist.

That is why a Muslim is not permitted to partake in Democratic elections, whether in Australia or Makkah or in Timbuktu for that matter. Whether the party is the ALP or it is a so called "Islamic party". Democratic elections are a competition not simply for who will be ruler, but who will be legislator, Muslims are forbidden to elect a legislator, we may only elect a representative (Caliph) who will implement the legislation of the only true Legislator, God.


Quote:

How would Muslims establish a theocracy if not by force and not by democracy?

I suggest you read some Islamic history, and learn about how Muhammad (Pbuh) attained control over Yathrib (now known as Madinah), that is our example.


Quote:

How do they stop the inevitable - that power mongers who are not true to Islam try to usurp control?

There are institutions we must put into place to prevent such things, like the Majlis ash-Shura (Consultative Assembly), but in the end, nobody can guarantee they can prevent tyrants from taking control, it can seep into any system, as humans are imperfect beings.


Quote:

Sure, I would be interested in that, especially if it was an apparent conflict between Islam and Australian values. After all, I have already listed polygamy and sex with young girls

Why is it you seek only to promote conflict and hostility between Muslims and non-Muslims? Are you afraid that if we share our commonalities that you might be "seduced" by our teachings and duped into letting us overrun your state?


Quote:

This forum has really benefitted from having genuine Muslims here who can correct the misinterpretations of Islam put forward by people like sprint.

If you honestly value our input, why are you always so hostile towards Islam? Why can't you concede it would be only fair and balanced to also include commonalities in your wiki entry?

I'm not trying to claim it's all love and peace and living happily everafter, it's not. But there are many commonalities and things that can lead to cooperation and prosperity between Muslims and non-Muslims. All throughout the history of the Islamic Caliphate, Muslims and non-Muslims have cooperated and lived in harmony (not on every front, but in some way or another). Look for instance to the exchange between Harun ar-Rashid (May God be pleased with him) and Carlos Magnus (Charlemagne) and the prosperity and shared advancement in al-Andalus and Dar al-Hikmah in Baghdad, where wealthy Europeans used to send their children to be educated by the Muslims, and great scholars from both sides used to work together to translate and disperse knowledge.


Quote:

Can you explain that Koran quote for us then? What does it really mean?

It's a hadith, not a Qur'anic verse.

And it quite clearly (in Arabic anyway) states "If he abandons the nation/community", indicating it is for the crime of treachery against the state. Which is punishable by death in many "modern" states today.


Quote:

Does Islamic rule require a tax on non-Muslims?

It requires a tax on ALL citizens, as do almost all countries. The Muslim and non-Muslim taxes just have different names, one is called Zakaat, the other Jizyah. Both would probably be much lower than what you're getting taxed today, so living under Islam would be quite attractive to a lot of people today.

Thanks for returning Abu.

I suggest you read some Islamic history, and learn about how Muhammad (Pbuh) attained control over Yathrib (now known as Madinah), that is our example.

Thanks, but I'd rather just ask you. You obviously know far more about it than I ever will.

So, Islam requires establishment of theocracy by conquest?

Why is it you seek only to promote conflict and hostility between Muslims and non-Muslims?

Look around this forum a bit. That is clearly not my intention. However, if I see genuine conflict between Islam and Australian values, I see no problem in pointing that out.

Are you afraid that if we share our commonalities that you might be "seduced" by our teachings and duped into letting us overrun your state?

No. I am afraid of the erosion of human rights, of separation of church and state, of religious discrimination, of tyranny etc. Whatever 'systems' you put in place, they will fall victim to tyrants. Christian societies learned this the hard way and it took a long time. It appears that Islamic societies have not yet learned this lesson. Then again, they do seem to be more burdened by a religion that rules out learning from history. I'm still not sure whether this is inherent to the religion, or just the way it is interpreted. The list is part of my attempt to understand this.

If you honestly value our input, why are you always so hostile towards Islam?

I am not always hostile towards Islam. I'll forgive your mistake seeing as you are fairly new here.

Why can't you concede it would be only fair and balanced to also include commonalities in your wiki entry?

It is an article about conflict. However, you are welcome to add a list of commonalities to it. I don't see much point though.

But there are many commonalities and things that can lead to cooperation and prosperity between Muslims and non-Muslims.

I'm not so sure about that. There are some things that are not negotiable, like democracy, separation of church and state, human rights etc. That is why I put the list together. Obviously I see some value in learning to get along, but there are some things which must not be sacrificed in order to achieve that. Furthermore, acknowledging fundamental conflicts between Islam and Australian values does not necessarily rule out cooperation and prosperity. We should not pretend these conflicts do not exist, because they are not going to simply go away. If Islam does prosper in Australia, people should be aware of everything it entails, and I suspect that local Muslims are not being entirely upfront about what Islam is. Sure Muslims get along OK as a minority, but a religion that requires theocracy should be judged by it's ultimate goal, not by what it will put up with while it has no influence. These issues have been misrepresented in the media, by mistaking what Muslims will tolerate with what they hope to one day achieve.

And it quite clearly (in Arabic anyway) states "If he abandons the nation/community", indicating it is for the crime of treachery against the state. Which is punishable by death in many "modern" states today.

So there is no penalty at all for apostasy?

The Muslim and non-Muslim taxes just have different names, one is called Zakaat, the other Jizyah.

Are they equal?

Both would probably be much lower than what you're getting taxed today, so living under Islam would be quite attractive to a lot of people today.

Our tax rates are determined democratically. In practice that means that the total tax burden represents something close to the median of what people want. You can't lower taxes without lowering services.

Does Islamic law stipulate how much tax people pay?

Quote:

Thanks, but I'd rather just ask you. You obviously know far more about it than I ever will.

Well it's better if you get a proper account of it, rather than just my second hand account. If indeed you are sincere in wanting Muslims to contribute to the dialogue here, and are serious about getting even a rudimentary understanding of the political methodology of Islam to attain statehood, then you should at least skim a brief historical account.

You can find a very brief account here

And a full biography and historical record here (You can skip straight down to the section "The First ‘Aqabah Pledge")


Quote:

So, Islam requires establishment of theocracy by conquest?

I don't think that's a very logical supposition. You can't really conquer anything if you don't even have a homeland to begin from. You must work to establish a state before it can "expand by conquest".


Quote:

Whatever 'systems' you put in place, they will fall victim to tyrants

Actually our system is proven. It was implemented for over 1350 years straight, and very rarely did tyrants surface. In contrast the secular societies have seen the rise of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hussein, Assad, Sharon, Bush etc. and the complete catastrophe that has resulted from only about 100-200 years of secular rule. There has been nothing but famine, world-wide war, nuclear obliteration of entire cities and their populations, chemical warfare etc. since the secular states began dominating global affairs.


Quote:

It appears that Islamic societies have not yet learned this lesson.

We never had a renaissance because we never needed one really. Our belief system doesn't suppress science and technology and advancement, it advocates and promotes them. The lessons weren't learned because the mistakes weren't made to begin with.


Quote:

It is an article about conflict. However, you are welcome to add a list of commonalities to it. I don't see much point though

I'm more concerned about why you're not interested in listing commonalities. After all the entry is entitled "Islam and Australian values" so shouldn't it show an all-round picture of that topic?

I'm not against contributing to it, I'm just dismayed you don't seem interested whatsoever in portraying both sides of the coin yourself.


Quote:

If Islam does prosper in Australia, people should be aware of everything it entails, and I suspect that local Muslims are not being entirely upfront about what Islam is

If? Hello! It's prospering! Islam is growing phenomenally in Autsralia. Hardly a week goes by that  I don't come across new converts to Islam some way or another. Either meeting them personally, or hearing about them or actually being an audience when they embrace it. The government may have slowed down immigration of Muslims into Australia, but they cannot stop the growth of Islam amongst Australians.

Some local Muslim groups, like the ones John Howard hand picked to represent us, are not upfront about Islam, agreed. But you'll find the vast majority of us are quite honest about our position and beliefs.


Quote:

but a religion that requires theocracy should be judged by it's ultimate goal, not by what it will put up with while it has no influence

Judaism also has a belief in a theocracy, and I'm sure there's members of Jewish groups here that call for a Halachic (their theocratic law system) state, so why aren't you as vocal about them? Not PC for you to do so? It's popular to confront the intentions of Muslims, but not popular to confront the intention of Jews?


Quote:

So there is no penalty at all for apostasy?

I didn't say that.


Quote:

Are they equal?

Of course they're not. As Malik pointed out, national service is also due upon Muslims.


Quote:

Does Islamic law stipulate how much tax people pay?

Of course it does. Not just individuals, states, companies etc. Islam has a complete governmental system, would you expect it not to have tax laws???

Sure you're used to thinking of religion in terms of Christianity only, but you must realise some other religions are much more than just personal rituals of worship.

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 4:24pm:

Is this your interpretation of the Koran, or the product of human reason?

That is my understanding of Islam, Muslims are not refugees here and haven't been forced out of their own lands but instead are citizens. As Muslims we are supposed to contribute positively in any society that we are in to make a positive difference. To be able to do that we need representation and to get involved in the system. If we are not doing that then it makes it impossible to really make a difference.

But there is a difference of opinion on this issue, as you can tell both Abu Rashid and myself have different views.


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 4:24pm:

Some scholars say it's prohibited to vote in elections because your voting in a non muslim government Is that the extent of it? There is nothing against democracy in the Koran, just against voting for someone who isn't a muslim?

It depends on how you define democracy FD, the word means the rule by the people. If you mean that the people make the legislation according to their own lusts and wants etc then that wont work in an Islamic State because the law is primarily decided by the Qur'an and Sunnah. Christians are bound by Christian law and Jews are bound by Jewish law.


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 4:24pm:

It is a vote. Would it make any difference whether you achieved your goals via election or referendum? What distinction are you trying to make?

There is a difference, an election is choosing a particular party within the same system. A referrendum may change the system as a whole.


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 4:24pm:

Would you support any alternative mechanisms?

Such as?


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 4:24pm:

So in a proper Islamic state that Islamic leadership would run everything?

Not quite, the state runs according to Islamic law when it comes to policies such as economic policy, foreign policy and several others. However when it comes to laws for specific groups such as the Christians and Jews then the State cannot interfere unless it is found that either group fails to do justice or falls into oppression.


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 4:24pm:

Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17: Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html#009.084.058

That's actually a hadith FD. The hadith needs to have context to it, the situations Muhammad pbuh was referring to is when the person becomes hostile to the state and commits treason. Also I might add that not all Muslims believe that hadith books like Sahih Bukhari and Muslim are completely reliable.


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 4:24pm:

Well actually, democracy isn't a protection from that at all either, many tyrants have been elected into government.. It's the best protection available, provided it is coupled with things like separation of church and state, personal freedom, human rights etc.

That's not quite true, the majority of the last century's most brutal men were elected in under a democracy. The majority of people might vote to imprison all Muslims in prison camps and that would be a democratic vote, but it would take away the Muslims human rights.

Just because people vote for it, it doesn't make it right.


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 4:24pm:

In an Islamic State we have separation of powers the same as the west has (although we've had it for considerably longer). There were cases where people even took the caliphs to court over matters and won against the caliph. If the Caliph goes against the shariah and starts oppressing the people, they can be deposed by the courts and if the president goes against it and does similar they can be deposed by the courts and voted out by the people. Who selects the Caliph, or president?

From my understanding the Islamic Leadership would be elected by a council and there would be a criteria for them to fulfil such as being from the Ahlul Bayt or descendents of the Prophet pbuh and be the best example of a Muslim there is. The president could be elected by the people but would have to be of good character sound judgement.


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 4:24pm:

Like in Israel, there is a compulsory period of military service? How do they decide how much the tax is?

Yes similar to Israel. However it can be done many ways, I would personally advocate a period of compulsory military service for all Muslim men, perhaps for 1-3 years and after that a reserve type service to help protect the nation if it come's under attack as all able bodied Muslim males have to fight against such a transgression.

Regarding how much would be taken out, as you mentioned, rates are determined by the needs of the state. The Christians and Jews wouldn't be the only people paying for the army though, Muslims pay too.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 9:57pm:

Actually our system is proven. It was implemented for over 1350 years straight, and very rarely did tyrants surface. In contrast the secular societies have seen the rise of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hussein, Assad, Sharon, Bush etc. and the complete catastrophe that has resulted from only about 100-200 years of secular rule. There has been nothing but famine, world-wide war, nuclear obliteration of entire cities and their populations, chemical warfare etc. since the secular states began dominating global affairs.

That's correct. While we had very few tyrants it is nothing compared to the amount we acheived. Heck we even turned the Mongol hordes from ravaging hordes intent on only conquest and bloodshed to peaceful patrons of the fine arts, architecture, poetry etc after they converted to Islam.

That's tight, another outstanding example of islam

"Five killed in Yemen blast  From correspondents in Sanaa | July 05, 2008
AT least five people were killed today in an explosion in central Saada, a town in northwest Yemen at the heart of a Shiite revolt, a witness said.

The witness, asking not to be named, said the blast near Saada's post office also left a number of people wounded. Rescue services evacuated the casualties as security forces sealed off the site.

Yemen's Saada province in mountains on the border with Saudi Arabia has been the heartland of an uprising launched by Zaidi Shiite rebels in 2004 in which thousands of people have died.

The two sides signed a Qatari-brokered peace deal in June last year but there has been repeated wrangling about its implementation.

The insurgents are known as Huthis after their late commander, Hussein Badr Eddin al-Huthi, who was killed by the army in September 2004. He was succeeded as field commander by his brother Abdul Malak. "

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23975153-12377,00.html



outstanding, no, more typical.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 10:53pm:

That's tight, another outstanding example of islam "Five killed in Yemen blast  From correspondents in Sanaa | July 05, 2008 AT least five people were killed today in an explosion in central Saada, a town in northwest Yemen at the heart of a Shiite revolt, a witness said. The witness, asking not to be named, said the blast near Saada's post office also left a number of people wounded. Rescue services evacuated the casualties as security forces sealed off the site. Yemen's Saada province in mountains on the border with Saudi Arabia has been the heartland of an uprising launched by Zaidi Shiite rebels in 2004 in which thousands of people have died. The two sides signed a Qatari-brokered peace deal in June last year but there has been repeated wrangling about its implementation. The insurgents are known as Huthis after their late commander, Hussein Badr Eddin al-Huthi, who was killed by the army in September 2004. He was succeeded as field commander by his brother Abdul Malak. " http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23975153-12377,00.html outstanding, no, more typical.

trolllllllllllllllllll..

sprint those aren't islamic values.

malik - funny, muslims do it, and much more, and quote the koran to support their actions.


by the way, did you answer the question that if you were convinced that the koran said what saudi/terrorists thinks it does, you would do that ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 11:02pm:

malik - funny, muslims do it, and much more, and quote the koran to support their actions. by the way, did you answer the question that if you were convinced that the koran said what saudi/terrorists thinks it does, you would do that ?

no, becuase why should i answer a question that your not prepared to answer about your own religion?

according to your logic, Jesus ordered jewish children be cut into pieces and pregnant jewish women to have their wombs ripped out and them both to be brutally murdered because they stopped doing what God said.

so what if jesus ordered you to do that?

i asked you first, you have still not answered.

your logic there was wrong and the quote from the OT.
As i have said repeatedly, I am not a jew.

you have still not answered.
answer the question please, malik.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 11:47pm:

i asked you first, you have still not answered. your logic there was wrong and the quote from the OT. As i have said repeatedly, I am not a jew. you have still not answered. answer the question please, malik.

my logic is working fine

because according to you jesus is god, and god ordered tht children be cut in pieces and pregnant women have their wombs ripped out and be brutally murdered along with their unborn children..

so thus jesus, according to your own logic, being God.. ordered the murder of these people as a punishment because they apostated..

unless you're going to tell me that jesus isn't the same God as the OT

im not answering because you would never show good faith in answering it first..

I asked it first mailk.
Thanks for confirming the saying, "scratch a muslim find a terrorist."

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 11:59pm:

I asked it first mailk. Thanks for confirming the saying, "scratch a muslim find a terrorist."

now your calling me a terrorist?

at least i dont believe my saviour ordered little kids to be cut in pieces and pregnant women to have their wombs ripped out and brutally murdered with their unborn children..

Not answering ??

nice to know where your decision will lie.
And you are a 'moderate' ?

oh, a student or the like ??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 12:05am:

Not answering ?? nice to know where your decision will lie. And you are a 'moderate' ? oh, a student or the like ??

im not answering because you show no good faith in answering it first..

it shows your dishonorable and not interested in fruitful dialogue..

bbwwwaaarrrkkkkk bbbwwwaaaarrrrrrrkkkkkkkk

What a sooky cowardly nonanswer that is malik.

Obviously, you don't want to give your reply.
In one of your previous quotes you said how mohammad is the most important thing in your life.
We can guess your answer, being a muslim, you would do whatever you think is said in the koran.
Be it "moral" or "immoral". The koran is unconcerned about that fine point.

Just do what the mohammad the kiddiebonker tells you, and you will be fine.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 12:45am:

What a sooky cowardly nonanswer that is malik. Obviously, you don't want to give your reply. In one of your previous quotes you said how mohammad is the most important thing in your life. We can guess your answer, being a muslim, you would do whatever you think is said in the koran. Be it "moral" or "immoral". The koran is unconcerned about that fine point. Just do what the mohammad the kiddiebonker tells you, and you will be fine.

Here's your answer.
Sprint, it's a hypothetical which wouldn't happen. Because obviously God would never order it. I wouldn't believe in a religion that orders such a thing..

Unlike you who's god and saviour, according to you punished jews by having their kids cut into pieces and pregnant women's wombs ripped out and them and their unborn child murdered brutally.

so now it's your turn to answer sprint.. would you do it?

so, you would break the rules of the koran if it said something you disagreed with ?

is that what you are trying to say ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 1:07am:

so, you would break the rules of the koran if it said something you disagreed with ? is that what you are trying to say ?

i wouldnt have become muslim in the first place if i disagreed with the rules in it..

now you answer the question, if Jesus told u to behead people and drink their blood.. would you?

nah, no way

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 1:14am:

nah, no way

yet you accept your saviour, who by your own admission is the same God as the God of the OT punishing the jews by sending an army that chopped little kids into pieces and ripped out the wombs of pregnant women, brutally murdering them and their unborn babies..

thats sickening.

Abu:

It was implemented for over 1350 years straight, and very rarely did tyrants surface.

So that entire period had proper Islamic law in the middle east?

I'm more concerned about why you're not interested in listing commonalities.

It's because they are obvious and banal.

After all the entry is entitled "Islam and Australian values" so shouldn't it show an all-round picture of that topic?

It does. I have invited you to add a list of commonalities.

Some local Muslim groups, like the ones John Howard hand picked to represent us, are not upfront about Islam, agreed.

How so? Is there anything else they misrepresented that I haven't noticed?

The government may have slowed down immigration of Muslims into Australia

By how much?

But you'll find the vast majority of us are quite honest about our position and beliefs.

You seem a bit touchy about certain aspects.

Judaism also has a belief in a theocracy, and I'm sure there's members of Jewish groups here that call for a Halachic (their theocratic law system) state, so why aren't you as vocal about them?

Jews don't convert people. Most Jews I know embrace democracy, separation of church and state, human rights etc. They have traditionally been the victims of strong church influence on the state.

I didn't say that.

Could you elaborate then please? What is the penalty for Apostasy? This is what I mean about you being a bit touchy. I have to keep 'prodding' you for this information. There have been numerous back and forth comments about the penalty for apostasy in this thread, but still no-one has mentioned what the real penalty is. Don't you want people to know about Islam?

Of course they're not. As Malik pointed out, national service is also due upon Muslims.

So the tax on non-Muslims is higher? Obviously when I said there was a tax on non-Muslims, I didn't intend to imply that only non-Muslims pay tax.

Islam has a complete governmental system, would you expect it not to have tax laws???

Actually yes, I am surprised that any religion would put forth laws regarding taxation.

Sure you're used to thinking of religion in terms of Christianity only, but you must realise some other religions are much more than just personal rituals of worship.

Is Islam the only religion that doubles as a system of government?

Malik:

Christians are bound by Christian law and Jews are bound by Jewish law.

I don't think Christianity and Judaism are systems of government. Most laws would have to be made according to the wishes of the people rather than holy books.

There is a difference, an election is choosing a particular party within the same system. A referrendum may change the system as a whole.

Yes I know what the definitions are, but I wanted to know why it makes a difference to you. Would it change whether you would vote, or what you would vote for or against?

Such as?

Conquest, coup, etc.

The hadith needs to have context to it

Can you provide the context for us? It seems pretty clear cut to me - death for apostasy.

That's not quite true, the majority of the last century's most brutal men were elected in under a democracy.

The majority of the most brutal men who arose in democratic countries were elected, because that is how you rise to power. That is a reflection of the spread of democracy. Plenty of brutal men rose to power undemocratically in other places. You are right that democracy alone is not sufficient, but when it is coupled with human rights, separation of church and state, free press etc, it works better than any other system.

Regarding how much would be taken out, as you mentioned, rates are determined by the needs of the state.

Abu seems to be implying that there are specific laws regarding tax rates. For example he said that the taxes would be lower than Australian tax rates. How does he know that?

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:06am:

Malik: Christians are bound by Christian law and Jews are bound by Jewish law. I don't think Christianity and Judaism are systems of government. Most laws would have to be made according to the wishes of the people rather than holy books.

No, both have laws in which they can be governed by, there have been many a Christian and Jewish state (not including Israel). The only problem with these states is that they didn't make provisions in their teachings or holy books for people of other faiths, instead they murdered them. In an Islamic State however, it makes provisions for people of other religions to be protected under it.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:06am:

There is a difference, an election is choosing a particular party within the same system. A referrendum may change the system as a whole. Yes I know what the definitions are, but I wanted to know why it makes a difference to you. Would it change whether you would vote, or what you would vote for or against?

It wouldn't make a difference to me, there is a difference of opinion however within the Muslim community, as to whether one should vote in any democratic elections. Some Muslims don't think it's appropriate, I respect their view but hold other views.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:06am:

Such as? Conquest, coup, etc.

Not through conquest, unless another state is attacking the Islamic State and diplomacy fails because the other state are fanatical about removing the Islamic State from the face of the planet. If the state continues and the only other way of stopping them is taking over their lands, then so be it. There's no other option. Also if another state doesn't allow their people to learn about Islam and harms Islamic Diplomats.

And I don't think a coup would be acceptable, unless it's in a state like Saudi Arabia and other states which were part of the Islamic where there is no ability for people to choose an Islamic State and are instead ruled by dictators and kings who are not ruling according to Islam etc. Then if there is no other option, of course they'd have the right to resist their government and reestablish the Islamic State.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:06am:

The hadith needs to have context to it Can you provide the context for us? It seems pretty clear cut to me - death for apostasy.

I've told you it's referring to a situation where people had committed treason, they had apostated also but their crime was treason.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503548996

This is a fatwa regarding freedom of religion in Islam.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:06am:

That's not quite true, the majority of the last century's most brutal men were elected in under a democracy. The majority of the most brutal men who arose in democratic countries were elected, because that is how you rise to power. That is a reflection of the spread of democracy. Plenty of brutal men rose to power undemocratically in other places. You are right that democracy alone is not sufficient, but when it is coupled with human rights, separation of church and state, free press etc, it works better than any other system.

Separation between church and state is not a protection from that at all, if the Islamic state protects peoples rights as you mentioned then certainly that'd be just as sufficient. In fact that has been proven by previous Islamic States, just because Christian and Jewish states don't work properly it doesn't implicate the Islamic State.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:06am:

Regarding how much would be taken out, as you mentioned, rates are determined by the needs of the state. Abu seems to be implying that there are specific laws regarding tax rates. For example he said that the taxes would be lower than Australian tax rates. How does he know that?

Yes, but this is depending on the tax. Some have set values, the others have different values. The Islamic Taxation system is very complex.

It would certainly be less than Australian tax rates, Australian tax rates are oppressive and illogical and discourages production.

Well Malik, I have tried to accept your replies as being offered in good faith, but your replies regarding apostasty have caused me to doubt your honesty, and question if your motive is to inform, or deceive.

It is a long and circular argument you offer that chooses to ignore some Hadith's and ambiguously interpret others. You state the reason for a death penalty is only treason, but that is open to the interpretation that any who choose to merely leave Islam, if they ever speak out against Islam, are in fact guilty of treason, by seeking to weaken Islam, by their verbal attacks, so any apostate is either sentenced to death outright, or forced to live in fear that any thing he says about Islam may be used to impose a death penalty at any time in his life.

Here is a you tube video, which quotes from hadiths, and Islamic courts and fatwas, that gives a pretty fair summation of the case in point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyKTAmnjng4

If you care to watch it, you may choose to argue against it, but it's fair and reasonable argument would be very difficult to honestly deny.

Many muslims use the texts to justify deceit.
It's OK to lie for reconciliation between people.
It's OK to lie to your wife, if it makes your life easier.
It's OK to lie if you are at war, because war is deceit.

So I can see a lot of muslims being able to indulge their deceit by using one of those reasons, in many varied and diverse circumstances.
Like Islam is being challenged, so we are fighting a war, even if it is a war of words, so anything goes.

It is a pretty elastic moral code which allows just about anyone to justify just about anything, and claim they are doing Allah's will.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 10:58pm:

trolllllllllllllllllll.. sprint those aren't islamic values.

;D You might just as easily quote some examples from the troubles in Northern Ireland and state that it's a reflection of typical Christian values.

I've seen Islam and Christianity in a number of coutries, including Turkey, the Gulf states and Sub-Saharan Africa.  

I made a post under the Spirituality forum about a female Muslim in Malaysia, complaining about the way Islam is changing. I noticed the same thing in Africa. It has become a lot more fundamentalist in many Sub Saharan countries, such as the coastal part of Tanzania. I remember a significant change between around 1980 and 1999, which was the last time I visited East Africa. The company I worked for in 1980 had many Muslims.  My secretary at the time was Muslim, and she wore no headscarf. If I went back now, I'm pretty sure that she would be wearing a headscarf, but that's just one aspect of the religion. For that matter about the same year, I remember a female secretary in Abu Dhabi who wore standard office dress with no head scarf, and I'm sure she was quite typical.  

I used to enjoy Ramadan in Mombasa, and kept sending Eid Ramadan cards for many years until we lost touch. I particularly used to enjoy the traditional fish pastries that were served on the breaking of the feast.

There has been a marked change in the nature of Islam, and I think it may be a result at least partly, of anti-Islamic feelings in the West.

Back in the 1980's in Kenya, it was common for the Red Cross and Red Crescent to work together, often from one office. That has now changed.

I think the fear among many Australians is that this very conservative brand of Islam is potentially threatening their way of life.

Christianity has undergone similar changes in the past.

My own personal concern is that Australian Muslims are becoming a closed society, and I have great doubts over attitudes towards apostacy and the lack of freedom for individuals to change their religions as they wish. I really think that many Muslim cultures have a great richness to offer Australia, but I see them as ingrown at this stage.

When the time comes that men women who grow up in an Islamic society can be treated as equals even if they have chosen spouses of different religions, then I think Islam will be more acceptable in Australian society. I don't believe that to be the case just yet, with perhaps a few exceptions.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 1:12pm:

It is a long and circular argument you offer that chooses to ignore some Hadith's and ambiguously interpret others. You state the reason for a death penalty is only treason, but that is open to the interpretation that any who choose to merely leave Islam, if they ever speak out against Islam, are in fact guilty of treason, by seeking to weaken Islam, by their verbal attacks, so any apostate is either sentenced to death outright, or forced to live in fear that any thing he says about Islam may be used to impose a death penalty at any time in his life. Here is a you tube video, which quotes from hadiths, and Islamic courts and fatwas, that gives a pretty fair summation of the case in point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyKTAmnjng4 If you care to watch it, you may choose to argue against it, but it's fair and reasonable argument would be very difficult to honestly deny.

Of course I argue against it. There have been several fatwas from Al-Azhar which have been inappropriate. But Islamic law dictates apostacy is not punishable by death, it's if the person goes to war against the state in committing treason then that is when such punishments apply.

The guy in the video was right about one thing, he ISN'T an Islamic Scholar, his taking of hadiths and trying to apply context a judgement without knowing anything about the Qur'an and Sunnah is exactly what extremists do.

The hadiths he is referring to are not mutawatir hadiths and thus even according to the standards of hadith research do not hold much weight. That means they might not be reliable, of course we don't accept every hadith because it can be incorrect. We only accept the Qur'an as being 100% correct.

I will post a fatwa from the Grand Mufti of Al-Azhar university, the highest ranking Islamic scholar there is at it below.



mozzaok wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 1:12pm:

Many muslims use the texts to justify deceit. It's OK to lie for reconciliation between people. It's OK to lie to your wife, if it makes your life easier. It's OK to lie if you are at war, because war is deceit.

Allow me to clarify

Firstly, if two people are quarraling, it is completely acceptable to try and stop that quarralling by telling each of them, that the other said good things about them.. That is to soften their hearts for reconciliation purposes.

Secondly, if your wife is wearing something that makes her butt look big, and she asks you if it makes her butt look big, or she's put on a little weight and is insecure about it or even if she's made some food which you dont like.. you can tell her butt doesnt look big or she's not fat or that you love the food.. that is so you don't hurt her feelings..

lastly, you can use deciet in war but that is a tactic, for example making your enemy think that they are fighting an unorganised force much smaller than them so they get arrogant and break ranks chasing your forces, only to be led into an ambush.. that doesn't break the rules of war when it comes to terms of surrender, truces, breaking promises etc.

There is nothing wrong with either of them.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 1:12pm:

So I can see a lot of muslims being able to indulge their deceit by using one of those reasons, in many varied and diverse circumstances. Like Islam is being challenged, so we are fighting a war, even if it is a war of words, so anything goes. It is a pretty elastic moral code which allows just about anyone to justify just about anything, and claim they are doing Allah's will.

not really.. if it was islamic law to kill apostates i wouldn't hesitate to state that.. i fear God and not the opinion of non Muslims so what do i have to fear from you?

Islam is Islam, we don't change it to suit your tastes as sprint changes christianity

Quote:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/sheikh_ali_gomah.html Freedom of Religion in Islam The essential question before us is can a person who is Muslim choose a religion other than Islam? The answer is yes, they can, because the Quran says, “Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion,” [Quran, 109:6], and, “Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve,” [Quran, 18:29], and, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is distinct from error,” [Quran, 2:256]. These verses from the Quran discuss a freedom that God affords all people. But from a religious perspective, the act of abandoning one’s religion is a sin punishable by God on the Day of Judgment. If the case in question is one of merely rejecting faith, then there is no worldly punishment. If, however, the crime of undermining the foundations of the society is added to the sin of apostasy, then the case must be referred to a judicial system whose role is to protect the integrity of the society. Otherwise, the matter is left until the Day of Judgment, and it is not to be dealt with in the life of this world. It is an issue of conscience, and it is between the individual and God. In the life of this world, “There is no compulsion in religion,” in the life of this world, “Unto you your religion and unto me my religion,” and in the life of this world, “He who wills believes and he who wills disbelieves,” while bearing in mind that God will punish this sin on the Day of Judgment, unless it is combined with an attempt to undermine the stability of the society, in which case it is the society that holds them to account, not Islam. All religions have doctrinal points that define what it is to be an adherent of that religion. These are divine injunctions that form the basis of every religion, but they are not a means for imposing a certain system of belief on others by force. According to Islam, it is not permitted for Muslims to reject their faith, so if a Muslim were to leave Islam and adopt another religion, they would thereby be committing a sin in the eyes of Islam. Religious belief and practice is a personal matter, and society only intervenes when that personal matter becomes public and threatens the well-being of its members. In some cases, this sin of the individual may also represent a greater break with the commonly held values of a society in an attempt to undermine its foundations or even attack its citizenry. Depending on the circumstances, this may reach the level of a crime of sedition against one’s society. Penalizing this sedition may be at odds with some conceptions of freedom that would go so far as to ensure people the freedom to destroy the society in which they live. This is a freedom that we do not allow since preservation of the society takes precedence over personal freedoms. This was the basis of the Islamic perspective on apostasy when committed at certain times and under certain circumstances.

And another by him.


Quote:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/gomaas_statement_on_apostasy.html Gomaa's Statement on Apostasy A Statement by the Grand Mufti of Egypt on Apostasy and Freedom of Religion I never retracted my statement on apostasy and freedom of religion. On Sunday I published an article in the Washington Post-Newsweek On Faith forum discussing the Islamic perspective on apostasy. I affirmed the freedom that God has afforded all of humanity in their right to choose their own religion without it being imposed upon them from the outside. Choice means freedom, and freedom includes the freedom to commit grave sins as long as their harm does not extend to others. This is why I discussed the fact that throughout history the worldly punishment for apostasy in Islam has been applied only to those who, in addition to their apostasy, actively engaged in the subversion of society. These two points sum up a greater religious principle: with freedom comes responsibility. My remarks on the On Faith forum were picked up in local Egyptian papers, but they only focused on the question of freedom giving the impression that leaving Islam is a light matter. Nothing could be more serious. In order to maintain the balance of the original article my press team sent out a statement emphasizing the aspect of responsibility, mainly that apostasy is a grave sin and, when combined with sedition, is punishable in both this world and the next. This balanced opinion is one that I have held for years and I have included in both my books and lectures. It is a position that I have never retracted. Unfortunately, some members of the press and the public understood this statement as a retraction of my position that Islam affords freedom of belief. I have always maintained the legitimacy of this freedom and I continue to do so. About Dar al-Ifta A fatwa is an official non-binding Islamic legal opinion issued by a qualified scholar in response to a question posed by a member of the public. The institution of Dar al-Ifta was established in 1895 with the purpose of issuing authoritative, accurate, and practical legal opinions. It is considered one of the few institutions authorized to issue fatwas in the Islamic world, and it issues over 5,000 fatwas a month in response to the questions it receives from all over the world by all forms of communication.

Doesn't the abrogation clause negate those Malik?
I thought that any later quote, "trumped" an earlier quote, so to speak.
So the quotes of peace are abrogated by later quotes extolling violence.

Also, the point I made in an earlier thread, Who is in charge?, has never been answered.
We see clerics, who command wide spread respect and obedience, calling fatwas on people all the time, and you just say, he is not a reliable source, or that he is mistaken in his interpretation, it seems to be a system without any formal checks and balances to control extreme elements.
That is why so many people have come to fear the spread of a religion which essentially seems totally without direction, and certainly with no control over the actions perpetrated in it's name.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 2:28pm:

Doesn't the abrogation clause negate those Malik? I thought that any later quote, "trumped" an earlier quote, so to speak. So the quotes of peace are abrogated by later quotes extolling violence. Also, the point I made in an earlier thread, Who is in charge?, has never been answered. We see clerics, who command wide spread respect and obedience, calling fatwas on people all the time, and you just say, he is not a reliable source, or that he is mistaken in his interpretation, it seems to be a system without any formal checks and balances to control extreme elements. That is why so many people have come to fear the spread of a religion which essentially seems totally without direction, and certainly with no control over the actions perpetrated in it's name.

What does abrogation have to do with the fatwas sorry?

Good question on who's in charge.. We have no Islamic State right now, all the states are run by kings, tyrants and dictators. When we have an Islamic State we'll have proper leadership insha'ALLAH (God Willing)

Here you go Malik, but excuse me if I do not conceal my suspicion that your professing ignorance of "Abrogation", and how it pertains to the Quaran, is not totally honest, it seems implausible that a scholar of Islam could be ignorant of it.

The concept of "abrogation" in the Quran is that Allah chose to reveal ayat (singular ayah – means a sign or miracle, commonly a verse in the Quran) that supercede earlier ayat in the same Quran. The central ayah that deals with abrogation is Surah 2:106:

   None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

For full article, go to;
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/abrogation.htm

mozzaok wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 4:48pm:

Here you go Malik, but excuse me if I do not conceal my suspicion that your professing ignorance of "Abrogation", and how it pertains to the Quaran, is not totally honest, it seems implausible that a scholar of Islam could be ignorant of it. The concept of "abrogation" in the Quran is that Allah chose to reveal ayat (singular ayah – means a sign or miracle, commonly a verse in the Quran) that supercede earlier ayat in the same Quran. The central ayah that deals with abrogation is Surah 2:106:    None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? For full article, go to; http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/abrogation.htm

I wasnt pretending to be ignorant about the issue at all. I just didn't quite undersatnd on how you were relating it to the particular issue we are talking about?

There is a big difference of opinion amongst muslims about the issue of apostacy and whether simply changing one's religion is punishable by death or whether it must come down to someone outwardly going against the state and trying to be subversive in addition to leaving islam..

some think that if a sane person does change their religion from Islam and wont change back then it's punishable by death, some think otherwise..

malik - every infidel thinks that any belief that will murder those that want to leave it is one of the worst cults in the world.

Noone thinks otherwise on that number.
Except those already in that cult. They cant escape anyway, so they have no choice.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 9:18pm:

malik - every infidel thinks that any belief that will murder those that want to leave it is one of the worst cults in the world. Noone thinks otherwise on that number. Except those already in that cult. They cant escape anyway, so they have no choice.

wow really? you mean like your saviour jesus who is the God of the OT according to you had little children chopped up into pieces and pregnant women's wombs ripped out and them and their unborn children brutally murdered because they left their religion?

Yeah that makes sense.

thought i heard a muslim say allah is the same God as in the OT ?

if you want to misinterperet the OT in that way, you are saying the same of your allah.

Anyway, back to the topic.
Sane people see any group that kills those that want to leave that group as abhorrant.
It is a normal move of any cult. Well, hardly any kill,  they just dissuade people from leaving.
muslims are the only ones that murder.

Interestingly, many cults have a "leader" who is into multiple wives and often paedophilia.
There is NO questioning the leader.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 9:53pm:

thought i heard a muslim say allah is the same God as in the OT ? if you want to misinterperet the OT in that way, you are saying the same of your allah. Anyway, back to the topic. Sane people see any group that kills those that want to leave that group as abhorrant. It is a normal move of any cult. Well, hardly any kill,  they just dissuade people from leaving. muslims are the only ones that murder. Interestingly, many cults have a "leader" who is into multiple wives and often paedophilia. There is NO questioning the leader.

No, we believe that God sent the taurat, not the OT. The Taurat that was sent and corrupted by the people over time.

So by your own definition, the God of the Old Testament, is Jesus Christ, thus it was he who ordered these little kids to be chopped into pieces and pregnant women's wombs to be ripped out and them and their unborn babies killed because they apostated.

Plus your God allowed Mary pbuh to marry Joseph when he was 90 and she was 12 and have babies after Jesus pbuh was born. So according you you, God impregnated Mary with Himself when she was 12, let her marry a 90 year old, and after he was born let her have kids with a 90 year old.. Wow that's really classy..

What is Islamic law regarding music, alcohol, marijuana and other drugs?

What is the penalty under Islam for apostasy?

No, both have laws in which they can be governed by, there have been many a Christian and Jewish state

Only in a nominal sense. Christianity is a religion, not a system of government. When you try to extend it to a system of government, it doesn't work very well. Saying that Christians should live under Christian law doesn't make sense because there is no 'Christian law' in the same way there is Islamic law.

What about atheists and non-abrahamic religions?

The only problem with these states is that they didn't make provisions in their teachings or holy books for people of other faiths

No, that is not the only problem in trying to figure out what 'Christian law' is.

It wouldn't make a difference to me, there is a difference of opinion however within the Muslim community, as to whether one should vote in any democratic elections. Some Muslims don't think it's appropriate, I respect their view but hold other views.

Do those other Muslims distinguish between elections and referendums?

re: coups and conquests. I know you said before you would simply vote in a theocracy. But technically Islam forbids democracy. Abu responded to this by giving the example of Muhammed's method, which seems to be the unification of warring tribes into an Islamic state. Obviously that model is pretty useless when it comes to a state that already exists. Is there a 'policy vacuum' in Islamic law on this issue?

I've told you it's referring to a situation where people had committed treason, they had apostated also but their crime was treason.

When you were responding to sprint's previous 'out of context' quotes you would quote the entire passage and/or explain the translational issues. can you do the same for that quote? It just seems so self-contained that it is hard to imagine anything preceding it that would change it's meaning.

Separation between church and state is not a protection from that at all, if the Islamic state protects peoples rights as you mentioned then certainly that'd be just as sufficient.

I'm not so sure it does protect those rights. It seems to have done a better job of protecting minorities than Europe. But that is only a small part of the rights I am interested in. Obviously separation of church and state alone does not achieve anything, but is part of the doctrine of separation of powers (including the media, police, the courts etc) that makes democracy work. Centralisation of power makes tyranny inevitable.  

In fact that has been proven by previous Islamic States, just because Christian and Jewish states don't work properly it doesn't implicate the Islamic State.

I'm not using Europe to show that Islamic states don't work. But I do think that Islamic states are doomed to fail for very similar reasons, and have done so.

Yes, but this is depending on the tax. Some have set values, the others have different values. The Islamic Taxation system is very complex.

Can you give a few examples? I'll lose interest once it gets too complicated.

It would certainly be less than Australian tax rates, Australian tax rates are oppressive and illogical and discourages production.

We obviously don't think so. I personally support a reduction in the total burden as a lot is getting wasted. But I wouldn't go as far as the example set by the US. How does Islam fit into that picture? Is it more extreme than the US?

from Mozz:

It is a long and circular argument you offer that chooses to ignore some Hadith's and ambiguously interpret others. You state the reason for a death penalty is only treason, but that is open to the interpretation that any who choose to merely leave Islam, if they ever speak out against Islam, are in fact guilty of treason, by seeking to weaken Islam, by their verbal attacks, so any apostate is either sentenced to death outright, or forced to live in fear that any thing he says about Islam may be used to impose a death penalty at any time in his life.

Is that true Malik? Is merely criticising Islam treasonous? Can Islam justify misleading the Australian people so as to achieve 'reconciliation'?

muso:

When the time comes that men women who grow up in an Islamic society can be treated as equals even if they have chosen spouses of different religions

I think Muslim men are allowed under Islamic law to marry Christian or Jewish women, but not atheists on 'non-Abrahamic' religions.

Malik:

not really.. if it was islamic law to kill apostates i wouldn't hesitate to state that.. i fear God and not the opinion of non Muslims so what do i have to fear from you?

Why won't you say what the penalty for apostasy actually is?

There is a big difference of opinion amongst muslims about the issue of apostacy and whether simply changing one's religion is punishable by death or whether it must come down to someone outwardly going against the state and trying to be subversive in addition to leaving islam..

Interesting. So many Muslims believe apostasy is punishable by death? Could you estimate a percentage? Is it based on that quote that you insist has been taken out of context?

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

What is Islamic law regarding music, alcohol, marijuana and other drugs?

There is a difference of opinion on this issue, some hold that singing is forbidden, some hold that musical instruments are forbidden and singing is ok providing the content is good, some hold that one particular percussion instrument is acceptable at weddings and other festivities and others hold that both musical instruments and singing is acceptable providing the message inside the songs are not perverted. Any intoxitant is forbidden in Islam.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

What is the penalty under Islam for apostasy?

Depends who you ask. Some say that leaving Islam is punishable by death and will be punished by God in the next life and others say that leaving Islam is not punishable in this life but will be punishable in the next life.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

Only in a nominal sense. Christianity is a religion, not a system of government. When you try to extend it to a system of government, it doesn't work very well. Saying that Christians should live under Christian law doesn't make sense because there is no 'Christian law' in the same way there is Islamic law.

I would disagree, look at the vatican and the empires ruled by the pope.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

What about atheists and non-abrahamic religions?

That's a great question, I'm not quite sure, but the Hindus lived under the Islamic State for quite some time.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

The only problem with these states is that they didn't make provisions in their teachings or holy books for people of other faiths No, that is not the only problem in trying to figure out what 'Christian law' is.

There is Christian law, look at the vatican and roman catholocism and also orthodox religions etc.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

Do those other Muslims distinguish between elections and referendums?

I'd say that would depend on the issue that is being voted on actually. Some might vote in other circumstances.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

re: coups and conquests. I know you said before you would simply vote in a theocracy. But technically Islam forbids democracy. Abu responded to this by giving the example of Muhammed's method, which seems to be the unification of warring tribes into an Islamic state. Obviously that model is pretty useless when it comes to a state that already exists. Is there a 'policy vacuum' in Islamic law on this issue?

The people of Yathrib voted in an Islamic State actually, that was the first Islamic State.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

I've told you it's referring to a situation where people had committed treason, they had apostated also but their crime was treason. When you were responding to sprint's previous 'out of context' quotes you would quote the entire passage and/or explain the translational issues. can you do the same for that quote? It just seems so self-contained that it is hard to imagine anything preceding it that would change it's meaning.

I'll need to research more into it for you my friend and then I can.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

I'm not so sure it does protect those rights. It seems to have done a better job of protecting minorities than Europe. But that is only a small part of the rights I am interested in. Obviously separation of church and state alone does not achieve anything, but is part of the doctrine of separation of powers (including the media, police, the courts etc) that makes democracy work. Centralisation of power makes tyranny inevitable.

But within an Islamic State there are separation of powers also. That's why it's possible to take the Caliph to court if they've done the wrong thing.

So that isn't necessarily something which is only in a democracy, it's also in other systems actually. Democracy is actually a bit different, it means that the people have the ability to legislate the laws according to their own lusts and wants.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

In fact that has been proven by previous Islamic States, just because Christian and Jewish states don't work properly it doesn't implicate the Islamic State. I'm not using Europe to show that Islamic states don't work. But I do think that Islamic states are doomed to fail for very similar reasons, and have done so.

Not really, it failed because of the wars and subversion instigated by the West



freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

Yes, but this is depending on the tax. Some have set values, the others have different values. The Islamic Taxation system is very complex. Can you give a few examples? I'll lose interest once it gets too complicated.

Wow, I wouldn't know where to start. It's very complex. Any particular topics you want to know about?


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

It would certainly be less than Australian tax rates, Australian tax rates are oppressive and illogical and discourages production. We obviously don't think so. I personally support a reduction in the total burden as a lot is getting wasted. But I wouldn't go as far as the example set by the US. How does Islam fit into that picture? Is it more extreme than the US?

Free market capitalism but regulated. As I mentioned, from my understanding it's similar to the Austrian school of economics.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

from Mozz: It is a long and circular argument you offer that chooses to ignore some Hadith's and ambiguously interpret others. You state the reason for a death penalty is only treason, but that is open to the interpretation that any who choose to merely leave Islam, if they ever speak out against Islam, are in fact guilty of treason, by seeking to weaken Islam, by their verbal attacks, so any apostate is either sentenced to death outright, or forced to live in fear that any thing he says about Islam may be used to impose a death penalty at any time in his life. Is that true Malik? Is merely criticising Islam treasonous? Can Islam justify misleading the Australian people so as to achieve 'reconciliation'?

Not true at all. Many people at the time of the prophet pbuh, his closest companions questioned his judgement and criticised.. They weren't considered treasonous.

Also no, the reconciliation I referred to is different to that you are referring to.


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

Malik: not really.. if it was islamic law to kill apostates i wouldn't hesitate to state that.. i fear God and not the opinion of non Muslims so what do i have to fear from you? Why won't you say what the penalty for apostasy actually is?

I answered this one just a bit above


freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2008 at 10:40pm:

There is a big difference of opinion amongst muslims about the issue of apostacy and whether simply changing one's religion is punishable by death or whether it must come down to someone outwardly going against the state and trying to be subversive in addition to leaving islam.. Interesting. So many Muslims believe apostasy is punishable by death? Could you estimate a percentage? Is it based on that quote that you insist has been taken out of context?

No I couldn't estimate it. I think it's based on some certain hadiths that cause that opinion.

What is Islamic law regarding proselytising, especially for other religions?

What is Islamic law regarding divorce?

On music, can you quote the bits in the Koran that lead some to consider music to be illegal?

On the issue of Apostasy, is there anything in the Koran on which the hadith calling for the death penalty is based?

Are taxes based primarily on consumption, income, or trade tariffs?

What is the penalty for rape?

I would disagree, look at the vatican and the empires ruled by the pope.

So Christians would be required to live under Vatican law or its equivalent, rather than secular democracy?

Any intoxitant is forbidden in Islam.

What about caffeine, nicotine, etc? What is the punishment for drinking, smoking pot, etc?

But within an Islamic State there are separation of powers also. That's why it's possible to take the Caliph to court if they've done the wrong thing.

I suspect that it is only in a nominal sense. Separating the courts from the government is only a small part of the separation of church and state. Such a nominal separation is unlikely to be maintained in practice, given the tendency for concentration of power.

Not really, it failed because of the wars and subversion instigated by the West

Why is it that it was so easy for the west to Subvert Islam? They aren't physically occupying the middle east most of the time. Why is it so hard to overthrow the oppressors that were set up? Europeans frequently turned on their home grown leaders when they got too oppressive and chopped their heads off. I can't imagine them putting up with a puppet government set up by foreigners from a different religion for very long. Ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan in the current situation, what is holding back the middle eastern Muslims from forming a righteous Caliphate again?

Not true at all. Many people at the time of the prophet pbuh, his closest companions questioned his judgement and criticised.. They weren't considered treasonous

But that was before the closure of the gates of ijtihad.

---

Some interestintg stuff about the Ottoman empire. I assume Abu and malik consider it to be an Islamic state, and would want something similar set up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

The Ottomans practiced a system in which the state had control over the clergy

The rapidly expanding empire used loyal, skilled subjects to manage the Empire, whether Albanians, Phanariot Greeks, Armenians, Serbs, Bosniaks, Hungarians or others. The incorporation of Greeks (and other Christians), Muslims, and Jews revolutionized its administrative system.

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was a part of Ottoman society.[31] As late as 1908 women slaves were still sold in the Empire.[32] During the 19th century the Empire came under pressure from Western European countries to outlaw the practice. Policies developed by various Sultans throughout the 19th century attempted to curtail the slave trade but, since slavery did have centuries of religious backing and sanction, they could never directly abolish the institution outright — as had gradually happened in Western Europe and the Americas.

The Ottoman Empire was, in principle, tolerant towards Christians and Jews (the "Ahl Al-Kitab", or "People of the Book", according to the Qu'ran) but not towards the polytheists, in accordance with the Sharia law. Such tolerance was subject to a non-Muslim tax, the Jizya.

Law:

Ottoman legal system accepted the Religious law over its subjects. The Ottoman Empire was always organized around a system of local jurisprudence. Legal administration in the Ottoman Empire was part of a larger scheme of balancing central and local authority.[42] Ottoman power revolved crucially around the administration of the rights to land, which gave a space for the local authority develop the needs of the local millet.[42] The jurisdictional complexity of the Ottoman Empire was aimed to permit the integration of culturally and religiously different groups.[42] The Ottoman system had three court systems: one for Muslims, one for non-Muslims, involving appointed Jews and Christians ruling over their respective religious communities, and the "trade court". The entire system was regulated from above by means of the administrative Kanun, i.e. laws, a system based upon the Turkic Yasa and Töre which were developed in the pre-Islamic era. The kanun law system, on the other hand, was the secular law of the sultan, and dealt with issues not clearly addressed by the sharia system.

These court categories were not, however, wholly exclusive in nature: for instance, the Islamic courts — which were the Empire's primary courts — could also be used to settle a trade conflict or disputes between litigants of differing religions, and Jews and Christians often went to them so as to obtain a more forceful ruling on an issue. The Ottoman state tended not to interfere with non-Muslim religious law systems, despite legally having a voice to do so through local governors. The Islamic Sharia law system had been developed from a combination of the Qur'ān; the Hadīth, or words of the prophet Muhammad; ijmā', or consensus of the members of the Muslim community; qiyas, a system of analogical reasoning from previous precedents; and local customs. Both systems were taught at the Empire's law schools, which were in Constantinople and Bursa.

What is Islamic law regarding blasphemy?

Does the four witnesses thing apply to rape?

According to this site, there is no mention of stoning in the Koran:

http://stop-stoning.org/node/9

How much land did Muhammed obtain for his caliphate through military conquest and how much through some kind of agreement?

---

http://www.geocities.com/muslimfreethinkers/jews_islam.htm

The Dhimmi

Still, as "People of the Book," Jews (and Christians) are protected under Islamic law. The traditional concept of the "dhimma" ("writ of protection") was extended by Muslim conquerors to Christians and Jews in exchange for their subordination to the Muslims. Peoples subjected to Muslim rule usually had a choice between death and conversion, but Jews and Christians, who adhered to the Scriptures, were allowed as dhimmis (protected persons) to practice their faith. This "protection" did little, however, to insure that Jews and Christians were treated well by the Muslims. On the contrary, an integral aspect of the dhimma was that, being an infidel, he had to openly acknowledge the superiority of the true believer--the Muslim.

In the early years of the Islamic conquest, the "tribute" (or jizya), paid as a yearly poll tax, symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi. Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non­Muslim as a wife).

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices-as that might offend the Muslims. The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Muslims-always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.(4)

Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the ninth century, for example, Baghdad's Caliph al­Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.

---

If Islam permits the marriage of prepubescent girls, where are the guidelines on sex with them?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/JenniferKing50718.htm

The law ordering pedophilia is in chapter 65, entitled ‘The Divorce’ and qualified by Islamic law, which is based on the sunnah, the ‘perfect example’ of Muhammad recorded in the hadiths, traditions. The context deals with the issue of the waiting period for divorce, and remarriage. The Quran orders Muslim men to wait a period of three months in the case of women who either are no longer menstruating or haven’t yet started their menstrual cycles.  

I found where sprint quoted this previously, but I couldn;t find the response to it:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm

Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64; see also Numbers 65 and 88)

What do these passages refer to?

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/heaven.html

Koran 52:24
Round about them will serve, to them, boys (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.

Koran 56:17
Round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness.

Koran 76:19
And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls.

I posted about Malik's legal threat on the aussie muslims forum. I got this interesting response. Note, 3 days later and no-one has criticised this person for promoting violence in the name of Islam. I agree with the bloke who said it is up to Muslims to correct the 'false' perceptions that most westerners have of them. This would have been a good opportunity to do so.

http://www.aussiemuslims.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24647&page=2

Being patient with it and accepting people are just losing the plot in this world is my way of dealing with it, but it depends like i said.
If some one said something about Allah i would (if there were no security cameras or way of getting caught) open a big can of roundhouses to the head, after expalining Allah is knower of all and if i didnt hurt you i would be guilty of not fighting for His cause, so please stop it, then if they dont stop, bombardment of flying fists and kicks.

Quote:

Being patient with it and accepting people are just losing the plot in this world is my way of dealing with it, but it depends like i said. If some one said something about Allah i would (if there were no security cameras or way of getting caught) open a big can of roundhouses to the head, after expalining Allah is knower of all and if i didnt hurt you i would be guilty of not fighting for His cause, so please stop it, then if they dont stop, bombardment of flying fists and kicks.

This could be an aberration FD - possibly a Muslim version of IQSRLOW?

freediver wrote on Jul 29^th, 2008 at 6:28pm:

Being patient with it and accepting people are just losing the plot in this world is my way of dealing with it, but it depends like i said. If some one said something about Allah i would (if there were no security cameras or way of getting caught) open a big can of roundhouses to the head, after expalining Allah is knower of all and if i didnt hurt you i would be guilty of not fighting for His cause, so please stop it, then if they dont stop, bombardment of flying fists and kicks.

What's your point about what he said FD?

You obviously don't know what type of people tend to be the majority on aussiemuslims.com don't you?

If you think you've seen harsh stuff there, then you should read some of the stuff on there that's been said about me  ;D ;D ;D

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 29^th, 2008 at 10:01pm:

You obviously don't know what type of people tend to be the majority on aussiemuslims.com don't you? If you think you've seen harsh stuff there, then you should read some of the stuff on there that's been said about me  ;D ;D ;D

There are thugs in all societies.

It's not the comment itself that caught my attention, but the lack of response it got from other members. I've been on some pretty hostile forums in my time. Some of the most hostile are the local fishing forums. But even they make a token effort at rebuking anyone who promotes violence, even if they only jsutify it out of self interest.

Here's some more 'interesting' comments. One member, out of many who responded to other issues, criticised some of the absurd claims:

http://www.aussiemuslims.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24647&page=4

I believe in the protocols of the elders of zion for two reasons, 1) all that is outlined in them has been done and/or is being done. 2) its the Jews that deny their authenticity but can you really expect anything less? of course they are going to deny it. Jews are world class liars and I have had this proved to me many many times.
The Jews do control the majority of the world and they have their goals and means in play right now. The Jews maintain that the holocaust took place but evidence shows that it didn't and that no 6 million Jews were exterminated.There was no extermination program in WWII. Official population records show there was in fact more Jews in the world after WWII than before it. The Nazi party has been made out to be an evil institution for 70 years but its just not true. All the stories we hear about it is allied and Jewish propaganda.Nothing more!

Yes, I believe the US government is 100% responsible for the 911 attacks.




Tattoo's aren't proof of extermination, they are proof that the National Socialists kept tract of their prisoners.

There is EVEN Jews who say the holocaust is a lie and that there was no extermination program.

I know the Holoco$t is a myth for a FACT, I've read enough evidence to know it 100%. I don't aim to convince you of this fact but I do ask you to keep an open mind about it and research it for yourself.

Google is you friend.



Actually, most serial killers are black men, although you don't hear about this in the biased media.
Heres just a few:

1. Matthew Emanuel Macon (Murdered and Raped 5 White Women in Lansing)
2. Jimmie Reed (Murdered his wife and his 2 month old daughter and set them on fire)
3. Shelly Brooks (Murdered 7 prostitutes in Detroit Cass Corridor)
4. Justin Blackshere (Stabbed two white cooks at Cheli’s Chili downtown Detroit)
5. Jervon Miguel Coleman (Murdered three people.)
6. Donell Ramon Johnson (Murdered a mother and a daughter)
7. Brian Ranard Davis (6 women known murdered by black person)
8. Paul Durousseau (Seven women)
9. Mark Goudeau “The Baseline Killer” (Eight women and a man in 2005-2006)
10. Coral Eugene Watts (Found Guilty of Killing 11 women in TX & 1 in MI. Suspected of Murdering Over 100 Women)
11. Anthony McKnight (Five girls and young women)
12. Derrick Todd Lee (8 Women)
13. Charles Lendelle Carter (4 known murders; admits to ‘hunting’ Atlantans for 15 years!)
14. The Zebra Killings (71 White people)
15. Chester Turner (L.A.s most prolific killer 12 women killed.)
16. Lorenzo J. Gilyard (Kansas City, MO.—13 victims)
17. Eugene Victor Britt (Gary, IN.–3 known murder/rapes.)
18. Reginald and Jonathan Carr (The Wichita Massacre–6 Whites murdered)
19. Ray Joseph Dandridge and his uncle, Ricky Gevon Gray (Richmond, VA.–Murdered 7 people in 7 days, including an entire White family.)
20. The Tinley Park Murderer (Suspect hasn’t been found but has been described as black - murdered 5 women in a store.)
21. Henry Louis Wallace (Raped and strangled 5 women to death.)
22. Charles Johnston (Murdered 3 unarmed white men in hospital)
23. Craig Price (Brutally murdered 3 women)
24. Harrison Graham (Brually Murdered 3 women)
25. Charles Lee “Cookie” Thornton (Murdered 6 Whites at the Kirkwood, MO. city council. )
26. & 27. Darnell Hartsfeld & Romeo Pinkerton (Abducted and Murdered 5 from a restaurant)
28 &29. John Allen Muhammad & Lee Boyd Malvo (Sniped 11 people from a car in DC, 9 died.)
30. George Russell (3 women, WA state)
31. Timothy W. Spencer (5 killed, Arlington, VA and Richmond, VA)
32. Elton M. Jackson (12 gay men killed, Norfolk, VA area)
33. Carlton Gary (3 killed in Columbus, GA)
34. Mohammed Adam Omar (16 women, Yemen. Omar is Sudanese.)
35. Kendall Francois (8 women, Poughkeepsie, NY and surrounding areas.)
36. Terry A. Blair (8 women, Kansas City area)
37. Wayne Williams (33 many of them children!, Atlanta, GA)
38. Vaughn Greenwood (11 killed in LA)
39. Andre Crawford (10 killed in Chicago - southside)
40. Calvin Jackson (9 killed possibley more in NY)
41. Gregory Klepper (killed 8, Chicago – southside)
42. Alton Coleman (Killed 8 in the Midwest)
43. Harrison Graham (killed 7+ in N. Philadelphia)
44. Cleophus Prince (6 killed in, San Diego
45. Robert Rozier (7 killed in, Miami)
46. Maurice Byrd (killed 20 + in St. Louis)
47. Maury Travis (17 and rising, St. Louis and possibly also Atlanta)
48. Hulon Mitchell, a.k.a. Yahweh Ben Yahweh (killed 20+ in Florida)
49. Lorenzo Fayne (killed 5 children in East St. Louis, IL)
50. Paul Durousseau, (killed 6, two of which were pregnant women, Jacksonville, FL; Georgia.)
51. Eddie Lee Mosley (killed 25 to 30 women, south Florida)
52. Henry Lee Jones (killed 4 in, south Florida; Bartlett, TN)
53. Richard “Babyface” Jameswhite (15 killed in, New York; Georgia.)
54. Donald E. Younge, Jr. (killed 4), East St. Louis, IL; Salt Lake City, UT.
55. Ivan Hill (killed 6 in Los Angeles area).
56. Michael Vernon (Bronx, NY. Killed at least seven people - )
57. Chester Dewayne Turner (12 women killed in, Los Angeles

freediver,

Either you're being deceptive, or you just didn't read enough from AussieMuslims, but the person who posted that is not a Muslim. Their name is Dana right? Go and search that person's posts, they are a non-Muslim member of AussieMuslims.

freediver,


Quote:

Abu responded to this by giving the example of Muhammed's method, which seems to be the unification of warring tribes into an Islamic state.

Actually I never claimed his methodogoly was to unite warring tribes. That was one of the outcomes of his coup in Madinah, but was certainly not his methodolgy. His methodology could be described as seeking the consent and support (Arabic: Nusrah, meaning help/victory in the same word) of the influential people within the society to embrace Islam and provide support and power to Islam and to the movement for the coup.

This is what he did, he approached various rulers all over Arabia and offered them Islam in return for their support of the establishment of an Islamic political entity, many foolishly declined. Finally the very wise people of Yathrib (now known as Madinah) accepted Islam and pledged that support, and their city became one of the most famous in all history.

Some unanswered questions in the above two posts:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/107#107

Also, an old question: what is the punishment for indecent exposure?

My thread got deleted from Aussie Muslims.

I am not aware of any physical punishment, but anyone exposing themselves in an Islamic Caliphate would definitely be forced to cover their nakedness. I don't really think it was ever that big an issue in the history of the Caliphate. As contrary to some claims, exhibitionism is not a sickness that is widespread amongst human beings, it's just in some strange cultures it's become some kind of weird fetish.

I'm not sure what black serial killers have to do with Holocaust deniers and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

:-?

Speaking of holocaust deniers, I've asked Malik a questions which wasn't answered. I guess this is a good time to address it again.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier. I wanted to know the basis and validity of his conclusions within a Muslim context.

Also, the question about Islamic revolutionary idealogy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216658313/3#3

As I pointed out, the person who poasted that is a non-Muslim, so it's irrelevant here anyway and shouldn't have been posted in this thread.

Since he's Shi'a, that would best be answered by Malik I think.

Just going by my gut feeling at the time though, it seemed to me like he was just doing it to upset the West, to show the hypocrisy of the "Call to freedom of speech" when people wanted to speak about Muhammad (pbuh) or draw defamatory cartoons of him. Perhaps he's a bit of a stirrer.

Quote:

Perhaps he's a bit of a stirrer.

Oh great, just what you want in a middle eastern leader.

What is Islamic law regarding arranged marriages?

Islam & Aussie Values Wiki Entry

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218709393

Arranged marriages have no legal basis in Islam.

This doesn't mean they're not allowed, of course it's allowed for people to assist others in marrying.

However, it's not allowed to force someone to marry, and this is what people normally mean when they speak about 'arranged marriage'.

Here's some hadith relating to forced marriage:

When a girl reported that her father had forced her to marry without her consent, the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave her the choice, either to  accept the marriage or to choose to invalidate it. (Narrated by Ahmad)

In another version of this hadith, the girl said "Actually I accept this marriage but I wanted to let women know that parents have no right (to force a husband on them.)" (Narrated by Ibn Majah)

Abu Hurairah quoted the Prophet as saying, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her, and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." (Narrated by Al-Bukhari)

Does that mean you don't need a matron's permission?

Does Islam have any rules regarding the social pressure on young girls to accept an arranged marriage?

Quote:

Does that mean you don't need a matron's permission?

As far as I'm aware the right to accept or refuse is extended to all people.


Quote:

Does Islam have any rules regarding the social pressure on young girls to accept an arranged marriage?

I just showed the hadith which clearly state it's not allowed to force a girl to marry.

How can Islam have rules regarding social pressure? When social pressure is generally something that acts outside rules, establishing it's own? The law is the law, and when Islam is the ruling system, it is able to assert itself via it's laws. Simple as that.

Consent is pretty meaningless when it concerns a child acting against the wishes of a parent. So is a law that requires the consent of a child bride. I'm sure that Islam, like all religions, contains plenty of rules that, although they cannot be legally enforced, guide people in these situations. Or is Islam limited to laws as they can be legally enforced?

listen freediver, I don't know what you want, but that's the law in Islam, it's not allowed for anyone to force someone into marriage. Since Islam isn't even implemented as law today, arguing over it is moot.

You ask a question, when you're given the answer you retort "But nobody will listen to the law"... if you didn't wanna hear the answer, don't ask the question, just continue on in your deluded little fantasy world in which Islam prescribes everything evil and the west is the bastion of goodness.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 11:54pm:

just continue on in your deluded little fantasy world in which Islam prescribes everything evil and the west is the bastion of goodness.

At least he balances out your deluded little fantasy world in which the west prescribes everything evil and Islam is the bastion of goodness.

MY question is about what it means to 'force' a child. A parent can get a child to agree to just about anything, even if it isn't in the child's interest. When the entire community is behind the parents, a child can have very little real choice. Does consent merely involve the child publicly accepting the arranged marriage?

Quote:

A parent can get a child to agree to just about anything, even if it isn't in the child's interest. When the entire community is behind the parents, a child can have very little real choice

Any similar law in any other system can be reduced to the same pathetically irrelevant argument...


How about you refocus your energies in the Setting the record straight thread... what were you talking about there, was it pre-Islamic Arabs or something? :)

Any similar law in any other system can be reduced to the same pathetically irrelevant argument...

How about the laws that forbid parents from selling off their daughters to dirty old men as soon as they hit puberty? How about the community values that stand in the way of arranged marriages for young girls?

Quote:

How about the laws that forbid parents from selling off their daughters to dirty old men as soon as they hit puberty?

You asked for the Islamic law regarding it, I told you what it is. You didn't like that it wasn't what you expected so you become hyper-argumentative and try to clutch at any straw to attack Islam.

It's also quite obvious that your reference to how societies view this and pressure their maturing girls, is based on the post-Islamic societies of today that are 80 years removed the Islamic laws and systems.

Perhaps if you weren't so presumptuous about Islam in the first place, you wouldn't feel so disappointed when you realise that the point you want to use to denigrate Islam doesn't actually exist. Then you wouldn't need to clutch for your proverbial straws to try and maintain your position in the discussion.

I'm just trying to figure out what a law against forcing a child into marriage means in practice. I don't think it is a moot point at all. It's what the thread is about.

Also, you mentioned that the post-Islamic societies of today are 80 years removed the Islamic laws and systems. Why did it take only 80 years to end up how it is now? Why didn't the people simply go on living up to the standards of Islam even though it wasn't imposed on them from above?

The Russian people are only 20 years removed from Communism, why do they not still live according to it's laws and dictates?

The German people are only about 70 years removed from Nazism, why they not still live according to it's laws and dictates?

One could just go on and on, but I'm sure you get the picture, and realise the absurdity of your question.

The Russian people are only 20 years removed from Communism, why do they not still live according to it's laws and dictates?

Because it's an economic system. The government made all their decisions for them. You can't go on having the government make all your economic decisions for you if the government is not doing that.

You could however go on respecting women, and demanding respect for women, even if the government doesn't force you to do it.

The German people are only about 70 years removed from Nazism, why they not still live according to it's laws and dictates?

Because they rejected Nazism. Is that why people in the middle east don't live under Islam any more?

Quote:

Because it's an economic system. The government made all their decisions for them. You can't go on having the government make all your economic decisions for you if the government is not doing that.

It was more than an economic system. It was a complete state system and ideology, and millions of people believed in it and some still do. But it no longer governs their societies and so it would be completely irrelevant to ask today "Why didn't such and such communist law from 20 years ago compel the people to still do such and such".


Quote:

You could however go on respecting women, and demanding respect for women, even if the government doesn't force you to do it.

Most Arab governments promote ignorant tribalistic beliefs and practises amongst their populaces, as they know that's the best way to keep them under control. Therefore they promote ideas like "men own their women" and so forth and it's from these ideas that forced marriages arise. Nothing to do with Islam, no matter how hard you try and twist it to appear that way. Just give up already, you really look quite desperate.


Quote:

Because they rejected Nazism.

Some did, some did not. There's still quite a lot of neo-nazi sentiment in Germany, and generally racist attitudes are still quite common amongst Germans. Either way, 70 years of 're-education' has removed most of the Nazi system from society, so why can't you just accept that 80 or more years of 're-education' in the former Caliphate lands has removed most of the Islamic system from those societies?


Quote:

Is that why people in the middle east don't live under Islam any more?

Most were duped into it. They were fed false ideas of nationalism, which caused them to engage in infighting and thereby assist the Sykes-Picot agreement to come to fruition. It's in the history books, you don't need me to re-iterate it for you, just look up Hussein Bin Ali or Mustafa Kemal, and you'll probably find a detailed account of how a lot of it happened.

Either way, 70 years of 're-education' has removed most of the Nazi system from society

Only a small percentage of the population actually supported what is generally considered to be nazism. They only lived under nazism for a few years then rejected it, not a millenium. As for communsim, try being more specific. I am not familiar with any personal moral codes that comes with communism.

Quote:

Only a small percentage of the population actually supported what is generally considered to be nazism

I see, so Hitler voted himself into power did he? And Crystal night and all the other pogoroms were actually Stormtroopers in civvies right? There has to have been quite a bit of popular support for something like Nazism to reach the point that it did.


Quote:

I am not familiar with any personal moral codes that comes with communism.

What do personal moral codes have to do with anything?

When the laws of the land are more relaxed than Islamic law, Muslims are required to live by the higher standard. It becomes personal.

Yes and it also means it's not being implemented by the state....

Come on freediver, these are things that anyone with half a wit about him could deduce. An ideology ceases to be implemented by the state, it's authority amongst general society wanes...

I really can't fathom what's driving you to persist with this empty discussion. Are you bored? Why don't you continue with the Setting the record straight discussion? Or am I just asking for more pointless discussions to erupt there as well, in which you can't find any actual mud to sling at Islam, so you scrape the bottom of the barrel for a quasi-argument?

An ideology ceases to be implemented by the state, it's authority amongst general society wanes...

That may be how it works with Islam, but Islam is unique among religions in this respect. Sure other types of ideologies require government enfvorcement, but that is because they are ideologies about governance, not morals. The fact that Islam requires government imposition indicates to me that people do not choose it as readily as other religions.

Quote:

but that is because they are ideologies about governance, not morals..

Your assumption that Islam is merely an 'ideology about morals' is false.

In fact probably 90% or more of the jurisprudence in Islam is relating to societal transactions, not individual behaviour. It is an ideology about economics, about ruling, about criminal law, about social law, about foriegn relations, about agriculture, about military, about trade and so on. And yes, there are some laws relating to individual morals and behaviours, but they are a very tiny aspect of Islam.


Quote:

The fact that Islam requires government imposition indicates to me that people do not choose it as readily as other religions

Well a lot of people have, and continue to choose it. It seems you're claiming that the belief requires government imposition, this is wrong and is  clearly not what we were discusssing. We were discussing an aspect of the Islamic social system, quite clearly not 'individual morals'.

Th real problem with islam is that you want to shove it down the throats of every last living being on the planet.

Quote:

Your assumption that Islam is merely an 'ideology about morals' is false.

But I am not assuming that. I said the opposite.

Quote:

Sure other types of ideologies require government enfvorcement, but that is because they are ideologies about governance, not morals.

This sentence appears to me like you're comparing Islam to other ideologies, and you've concluded other ideologies are about governance and not morals whilst Islam is about morals and not governance. And therefore that's why government enforcement is understandable in the former case, yet not the latter.

If this is not the case, then please clarify.

That comment was referring to things like communism, democracy etc that you brought up to show that ideologies require government implimentation otherwise they lose their following. For the most part, religion is about personal morals. Islam is fairly unique in this respect. Fair enough if people abondon the tax laws once the government stops enforcing it, but that doesn't explain why the middle east went 'back' to opressing women etc so quickly.

Quote:

things like communism, democracy etc that you brought up to show that ideologies require government implimentation otherwise they lose their following.

Well I think we have a misunderstanding here as to what's meant by following. After Communism fell, there's still many Communists left in Russia. People who believe in the ideology, but that doesn't mean that Communism is implemented in their society anymore. So they might keep and read their little red books (ok, that's Mao, but just using it for effect), they might attend communist party gatherings, they might do certain things (almost ritual like stuff), but that doesn't mean they're implementing Communism. Believing in an ideology and actually living/implementing it are not the same thing. One requires a state, the other does not.


Quote:

Fair enough if people abondon the tax laws once the government stops enforcing it, but that doesn't explain why the middle east went 'back' to opressing women etc so quickly.

You still have this view that something like tax laws are irrelevant to Islam, whereas treatment of women shouldn't be. I understand what you're saying, that tax is something implemented on the people by the state, whilst treatment of women is an individual activity, but the fact is that if the government has spent the past 80 years educating the populace in tribalistic beliefs like that men own women, then people will move towards those beliefs. They become ingrained in society. Now back to the original point, Islam clearly states the girl has a right to refuse or accept a marriage, and the Islamic state must uphold that right. If the state doesn't exist, then arguing over what occurs today is irrelevant. Also arguing over why society no longer protects that right is irrelevant, since the new societies that've been formed in the Muslim lands are not based on Islam. They might mix a few Islamic ideas in here and there, but by large they are not Islamic.

Quote:

You still have this view that something like tax laws are irrelevant to Islam

No I don't. It would be more accurate to say they are irrelevant to me, as none of my arguments are about it.


Quote:

but the fact is that if the government has spent the past 80 years educating the populace in tribalistic beliefs....

Has that actually happened?


Quote:

If the state doesn't exist, then arguing over what occurs today is irrelevant.

Not really. You can still stand up for women's rights, for the rights of your daughter, for the rights of your wife etc, even if the government doesn't enforce the same standards on your behalf. Take for example the culture we used to have in the west where men would open doors for women and all that sort of stuff. None of that was ever government enforced. Also, our treatment of young girls with regard to marriage sets a far higher standard than the law. The law in many western countries allows old men to marry relatively young teenagers with parents permission, but by and large parents never let that happen because such relationships are usually exploitive.

CANT REFUTE...  IGNORE.

NICE TRY ABOO, BUT i'D SAY EVERYONE NOTICED.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 1^st, 2008 at 12:50am:

Quote: things like communism, democracy etc that you brought up to show that ideologies require government implimentation otherwise they lose their following. Well I think we have a misunderstanding here as to what's meant by following. After Communism fell, there's still many Communists left in Russia. People who believe in the ideology, but that doesn't mean that Communism is implemented in their society anymore. So they might keep and read their little red books (ok, that's Mao, but just using it for effect), they might attend communist party gatherings, they might do certain things (almost ritual like stuff), but that doesn't mean they're implementing Communism. Believing in an ideology and actually living/implementing it are not the same thing. One requires a state, the other does not. [quote]Fair enough if people abondon the tax laws once the government stops enforcing it, but that doesn't explain why the middle east went 'back' to opressing women etc so quickly.

You still have this view that something like tax laws are irrelevant to Islam, whereas treatment of women shouldn't be. I understand what you're saying, that tax is something implemented on the people by the state, whilst treatment of women is an individual activity, but the fact is that if the government has spent the past 80 years educating the populace in tribalistic beliefs like that men own women, then people will move towards those beliefs. They become ingrained in society. Now back to the original point, Islam clearly states the girl has a right to refuse or accept a marriage, and the Islamic state must uphold that right. If the state doesn't exist, then arguing over what occurs today is irrelevant. Also arguing over why society no longer protects that right is irrelevant, since the new societies that've been formed in the Muslim lands are not based on Islam. They might mix a few Islamic ideas in here and there, but by large they are not Islamic.[/quote]


I put this in my list of techniques used to try to decieve non-Muslims.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_doesn.27t_exist

Most of the criticism of what happens in the middle east has nothing to do with contract law, tax law, dodgy used car salesmen etc. It is about social issues. These are not solely controlled by the state. Abu claims that once a state stops enforcing a particular religious ideology, it stops having an influence. This is simply not true. Christianity had a very strong influence over western societies for centuries after it stopped being imposed on them. The distinction itself is absurd, because it is not a one-way street. The government, whatever form it takes, reflects the religion and views of the people more than it influences them.

Saying that social standards like the treatment of women have nothing to do with Islam if Islam is not imposed on people by the state is absurd. People are still Muslims. If anything, this is evidence that Islam undermines the standing of women in a society, because it is not enough for people to hold Islamic values. Rather, it has to be imposed on them. Muslims will not simply treat women right because it is the right thing to do, either at the personal, family, or community level. Instead, they will mistreat them, and can only be coerced into treating them well if it is imposed from above.

Quote:

The distinction itself is absurd, because it is not a one-way street. The government, whatever form it takes, reflects the religion and views of the people more than it influences them.

Might be true to some extent in Democratic countries. In Middle Eastern dictatorships it means nothing. The people accept the views of the state, or they can goto prison and be tortured, that's the only two choices.

That makes sense for things like Saudi forcing women to wear face covers in addition to the traditional Islamic tent. But what middle eastern dictatorships torture men for treating women respectfully, or not stoning them to death for adultery, or not marrying them off to a lecherous old man once they hit puberty?

No, you stated that the religion of the people is reflected in the government, but in Muslim countries it's simply not the case. The government's are mostly the harshest enemies against Islam, and openly and covertly prevent Muslims practising their religion.

Other than not being a proper Caliphate, how do they prevent Muslims from practising their religion? Which countries are you referring to now?

Pretty much all of the Arab countries. Islamic political parties are banned, in some the hijab is banned in certain places, in some there is discrimination against people with beards.

Is Iran an Arab country? Can you give some specific examples? As far as I know Saudi requires women to wear the full tent outfit. I'm only aware of Turkey banning it in universities.

Quote:

Is Iran an Arab country?

No. Persian.


Quote:

Can you give some specific examples?

For the beard, most Arabic countries do not permit men to have beards in the armed forces for instance, and usually they also have national service, which means they'll be forced to shave their beards for a few years. Also it's difficult to enter many clubs and other social venues if you have a beard in quite a few Arabic countries.


Quote:

As far as I know Saudi requires women to wear the full tent outfit.

Saudi Arabia requires wearing of the hijab, it does not require a 'full tent outfit', you do waffle on some nonsense sometimes freediver.


Quote:

I'm only aware of Turkey banning it in universities.

Tunisia and Azerbaijan  as well.


Quote:

Tunisia is also one of three Muslim countries (Azerbaijan and Turkey are the others) that prohibits the hijab in government buildings. By government edict, women that insist on wearing the hijab cannot enter public buildings. Dissenters are liable to a fine and have to sign a document to avoid recidivism.

Tunisia on wikipedia

most Arabic countries do not permit men to have beards in the armed forces for instance

I'd imagine it could cause problems with machine guns etc. Do they also ban beards around rotating equipment?

Also it's difficult to enter many clubs and other social venues if you have a beard in quite a few Arabic countries.

My initial response to this was that nightclubs set their own rules for dress standards etc, but something makes me think you are referring to some other type of club. All clubs set their own standards. membership is optional.

Saudi Arabia requires wearing of the hijab, it does not require a 'full tent outfit', you do waffle on some nonsense sometimes freediver.

I thought you said they had to cover their face and hands there.

Quote:

I'd imagine it could cause problems with machine guns etc. Do they also ban beards around rotating equipment?

Actually in some countries it's restricted only to officers, so unless using pens to write reports might get in the way of your beard, your explanation doesn't make a lot of sense. Anyway, the original point still stands, if the government reflected the religion of the people, they'd allow beards, or even demand them. I think even Israel permits soldiers to have beards.


Quote:

but something makes me think you are referring to some other type of club.

Of course I'm not talking about nightclubs. Talking about social/sporting clubs that exist in most Arabic countries where people goto eat, play sports and socialise. Many of them, the most prestigious ones are usually linked in with the higher ranks of the military and government.

You do realise it's possible to have social clubs that don't revolve around alcohol consumption and casual encounters with the opposite sex, don't you? Although some of that probably occurs in some anyway.


Quote:

I thought you said they had to cover their face and hands there.

I don't believe so. Unless you'd care to quote me?

So you don't think clubs should be allowed to set their own standards for dress and personal grooming?


Quote:

Anyway, the original point still stands, if the government reflected the religion of the people, they'd allow beards, or even demand them.

What I initially said was that the government reflects the views of the people more than the other way round. Picking up a few examples where they differ hardly disproves this. You are merely giving the exceptions that prove the rule. While the middle east or North Africa may not be a perfect example of Sharia law, you cannot pretend that stoning people to death or treating women as property or sex slaves has nothing at all to do with Islam.


Quote:

Muslims will not simply treat women right because it is the right thing to do, either at the personal, family, or community level. Instead, they will mistreat them, and can only be coerced into treating them well if it is imposed from above.

Correction: and can only be coerced into treating them slightly better if it is imposed from above

Quote:

So you don't think clubs should be allowed to set their own standards for dress and personal grooming?

Where did I say what I think should and shouldn't occur. Please stick with the dialogue fd. What I said is that governments in most Muslim countries couldn't care less about the religion of the people and in fact often discriminate against them.


Quote:

What I initially said was that the government reflects the views of the people more than the other way round.

And I said I agree in democracies. But not in dictatorships. There's no need for them to. They dictate what they want and the people follow suit.

But there is a need for them to. Even a dictator has to appeal to the people and play politics. They just play the game a bit differenctly. You don't see any South American dictators trying to tell people they can't be Catholic. That doesn't mean they are model catholics and impliment catholic doctrine by the book. But if you look at a South American dictatorship and a middle eastern one, the influence of the people's views on government will be quite evident. It's only when you loose yourself in a few details of how one country differs from the views of the people that you can loose all perspective and pretend this doesn't happen.

You can't claim for example that stoning people to death in the middle east and mistreating women has nothing to do with Islam, just because Islamic doctrine is not imposed from above.

Good work FD

There are so many perspective to perceive the Qu'ran.

If we suspend our belief that this is inspired by Allah and look at the Qu'ran as a doctrine of common sense written as a guide for people of that time then it certainly takes on new meaning

"Idiot's guide to everything" is the modern version of the Qu'ran

The connotation of the Qu'ran is very sexist and oppressive. You can almost tell that Mohammed was a jilted man so he's taking revenge on womenhood. You can beat them. You can have sex with them. You can demand sex from them. You can have more than one wife.

The message is pretty clear!!

If Allah loved all - then he would treat all equally.

Inequality is a man-made concept

Maqqa wrote on Jul 10^th, 2011 at 12:29am:

Good work FD There are so many perspective to perceive the Qu'ran. If we suspend our belief that this is inspired by Allah and look at the Qu'ran as a doctrine of common sense written as a guide for people of that time then it certainly takes on new meaning "Idiot's guide to everything" is the modern version of the Qu'ran The connotation of the Qu'ran is very sexist and oppressive. You can almost tell that Mohammed was a jilted man so he's taking revenge on womenhood. You can beat them. You can have sex with them. You can demand sex from them. You can have more than one wife. The message is pretty clear!! If Allah loved all - then he would treat all equally. Inequality is a man-made concept

lol...its funny how your such an expert on a book that you haven't even read.

Inquiry exposes fear of Muslims

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/inquiry-exposes-fear-of-muslims/story-fn9hm1gu-1226409557512

AUSTRALIANS are comfortable with multiculturalism and racial diversity, but an overwhelming number of people have expressed concerns that Muslims are not integrating and are coming to Australia to impose their values on the nation.

A far-reaching bipartisan federal parliamentary inquiry into the nation's acceptance of culturally diverse communities, due to report in August, will conclude that the largest issue facing the nation is the acceptance of Muslims, who many Australians fear have an agenda not at one with the country's values.

Labor MP Maria Vamvakinou, who chairs the inquiry, has told The Australian her committee believes the country needs strong political leadership to address the crisis over Islam.

She said the committee looking at multiculturalism would not extend "rights" and would not recommend the introduction of a multicultural act because people resented being told what to think.

The strengthening of laws has been on the agenda and this is the first time it has been ruled out.

"No, the multicultural act won't happen, and neither is sharia law," Ms Vamvakinou told The Australian.

"I think we do not need to prescribe things and I felt that people resent that there is this prescription for behaviour and this issue is too important to the broader community to let it fester.

"Australians are comfortable with multiculturalism. We don't think a multicultural act will help multiculturalism. People don't need new laws here."

Instead of increasing laws, Australia needed to address how it could continue the positive elements of multiculturalism "without creating the sense of new rules being imposed".

She said her committee was looking at recommending that the issue of Islamic acceptance engage political leadership because of alarming levels of discomfort with Muslims.

Ms Vamvakinou also said the committee had been overwhelmed by complaints that the multicultural system was failing to equip new Australians with language skills and suitable work.

She said the system was not helping migrants and refugees at the front door, particularly by failing to provide adequate language tuition and also by failing to recognise migrants' unique qualifications.

"Clearly, there is a belief among some people that there is a worldwide agenda for Islamists to bring their values into Australia. There is a view that multiculturalism is a way for Muslims to come in and impose their views under the guise of multiculturalism.

"Our approach is not to ignore this. There is a section of the community that thinks this way. We think we need strong leadership on this because it emerged as a big issue. We have to balance this between people's fears and the real facts," she said.

Ms Vamvakinou said her committee would try to present the government with a unified response, rather than one that has dissenting reports by politicians of different views. "In the past decade, multiculturalism was a political football and I think that caused a lot of damage," she said.

Two other threads about this:

Islam & Aussie Values Wiki Entry

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218709393

Islam and Australian secular values

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1417441534

---

Written by a bona fide ethnic person:

Radical Islam and western values cannot coexist peacefully

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/radical-islam-and-western-values-cannot-coexist-peacefully/story-e6freon6-1227178804093

LET’S get one thing straight; every attack perpetrated by Islamic extremists is an attack against freedom of speech, whether they’re terrorising journalists and cartoonists at a satirical magazine in Paris or bystanders having a quiet coffee in Sydney.

These callous cowards seek to silence dissenting voices by waging a war of terror against anyone who dares question their twisted, totalitarian worldview.

The time for weasel words and treading on eggshells is over. We owe it to the growing number of victims to open our eyes and acknowledge the unmistakable reality that radical Islam and Western values cannot coexist peacefully.

These extremists despise our way of life; our freedom, openness and diversity are an affront to their despotic, backward attitudes.

We must stop pretending that these incidents have nothing to do with Islam. They quite clearly have everything to do with extremist Islam and the sooner we admit this truth the better we can work to protect our people and values from this ever-present scourge.

Islamic extremism is a global problem that moderate, peaceful Muslims need to unconditionally condemn and help solve instead of engaging in games of deflection.

The viciousness of these subhuman savages was on display on the streets of Paris as they walked up to an injured policeman lying helpless on the ground and shot him dead at point-blank range without missing a step. It mattered not that Ahmed Merabet was himself a Muslim. They didn’t care that his arms were raised in surrender; he was shown no mercy.

These are not people who can be reasoned with or counselled into adopting our values of humanity, tolerance and liberty.

We in the West must stop blaming ourselves for these acts of brutality. There are those among us, the so-called “progressives”, who seek to explain the behaviour of terrorists by pointing the finger at the victims.

According to these enlightened souls, homegrown terrorism is really our fault. We are to blame for not being welcoming enough, for creating an underclass of disenfranchised young men, for being part of the US-led coalition in the Middle East, for supporting Israel’s right to exist, for printing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, for raising the terror alert level … indeed, if you rationalise hard enough, any act can be considered provocation to Islamic extremists. For some tyrants, free speech is itself an incitement to violence.

This mass-scale victim blaming is an insult not only to the victims but also the overwhelming majority of Muslims migrants who appreciate the abundant freedoms and opportunities available to them in countries like Australia.

It’s a mistake to presume that all Islamic people want us to change our ways or laws to better fit the values of their homeland.

But there is undoubtedly a minority of troublemakers who seek to change our free societies into the type of place they fled from and, as we have seen around the world, it only takes one radicalised attacker to cause wide-scale mayhem.

The barbaric death cult that is Islamic State has inspired a new legion of radicalised Islamic men, and even some women, to commit atrocities in the name of Allah against Western targets. But let’s not forget that it’s other Muslims who are the biggest victims of Muslim extremism.

On the same day that three heavily armed gunmen butchered 12 innocent people in Paris, there was another terror attack in Yemen where a suicide bomber killed dozens of police recruits outside a station. The death toll stands at 37 and is expected to grow.

However, it’s when these acts of base brutality occur in Western nations that many fully appreciate the threat radical Islam poses to the world. We should feel comfortable to readily call out elements within any culture or religion that are incompatible with our cherished values of equality, freedom and democracy.

It’s time politicians, including the Prime Minister, stopped tiptoeing around issues involving cultural or religious sensitivities for fear that they’ll be labelled intolerant.

Nothing is gained by pandering to extreme elements in the vain hope that we’ll impress upon them that the path to assimilation is preferable to fundamentalism.

The fear of Islamophobia and the illusory nonsense of a redneck backlash against the Muslim community have become a bat to beat down all valid criticism.

It is worth noting that while the French satirical magazine CharlieHebdo poked fun at Islam, it also regularly satirised Christianity and Judaism, and yet there have been no attacks by enraged Catholics or Jews. This reveals the lie that all religions are equally bloodthirsty; in the 21st century only one religion is at the centre of terror attacks around the world.

Only followers of one religion who think they are entitled to butcher those who offend their prophet. Frankly, if your all-powerful deity is so fragile that a cartoon poses a threat then you may want to reconsider your belief system.

The editor of Charlie Hebdo, Stéphane Charbonnier, said in a 2012 interview, a year after his magazine’s headquarters were firebombed by Muslim extremists angry with a satirical cartoon, that they would continue “until Islam is made as ho-hum as Catholicism”.

Shamefully, at the time, there was no shortage of progressives willing to blame the magazine and its staff for “inciting” the attack.

In the same interview Charbonnier said: “I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.” Tragically, he was among those murdered this week by Islamic extremists.

We cannot be scared into silence or intimidated into self-blame; the problem lies with radical Islam not our Western democratic societies.

RITA PANAHI IS A HERALD SUN COLUMNIST

http://www.realcourage.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/mosque-defaced-tennessee-2-300x198.jpg

nice artwork

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:18pm:

Written by a bona fide ethnic person

So, having an "ethnic name" suddenly makes one an expert on Muslims and Islam, FD?

Interesting woman Rita Pahani.  Tell me, FD do you agree with her belief that McDonalds should be allowed to open branches in Childrens Hospitals?  Do you think McDonalds promotes a healthy lifestyle to childrens' eating habits?

She and Herbie would get along very well, I suspect.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:18pm: Written by a bona fide ethnic person So, having an "ethnic name" suddenly makes one an expert on Muslims and Islam, FD? Interesting woman Rita Pahani.  Tell me, FD do you agree with her belief that McDonalds should be allowed to open branches in Childrens Hospitals?  Do you think McDonalds promotes a healthy lifestyle to childrens' eating habits? She and Herbie would get along very well, I suspect.

Buzz orf Brain, you are irrelevant.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:22pm:

http://www.realcourage.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/mosque-defaced-tennessee-2-300x198.jpg nice artwork

Really?  It looks like primitive Islamophobia to me.   ::)

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:52pm: freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:18pm: Written by a bona fide ethnic person So, having an "ethnic name" suddenly makes one an expert on Muslims and Islam, FD? Interesting woman Rita Pahani.  Tell me, FD do you agree with her belief that McDonalds should be allowed to open branches in Childrens Hospitals?  Do you think McDonalds promotes a healthy lifestyle to childrens' eating habits? She and Herbie would get along very well, I suspect. Buzz orf Brain, you are irrelevant.

Really?  Why do you keep replying to me then, Soren?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:57pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:52pm: freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:18pm: Written by a bona fide ethnic person So, having an "ethnic name" suddenly makes one an expert on Muslims and Islam, FD? Interesting woman Rita Pahani.  Tell me, FD do you agree with her belief that McDonalds should be allowed to open branches in Childrens Hospitals?  Do you think McDonalds promotes a healthy lifestyle to childrens' eating habits? She and Herbie would get along very well, I suspect. Buzz orf Brain, you are irrelevant. Really?  Why do you keep replying to me then, Soren?   ::)

Because I do not want you to think that you can get away with being an eyewateringly stupid and tendentious apologist - spineless apologist.

Soren wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 10:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:57pm: Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 10:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:52pm: freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:18pm: Written by a bona fide ethnic person So, having an "ethnic name" suddenly makes one an expert on Muslims and Islam, FD? Interesting woman Rita Pahani.  Tell me, FD do you agree with her belief that McDonalds should be allowed to open branches in Childrens Hospitals?  Do you think McDonalds promotes a healthy lifestyle to childrens' eating habits? She and Herbie would get along very well, I suspect. Buzz orf Brain, you are irrelevant. Really?  Why do you keep replying to me then, Soren?   ::) Because I do not want you to think that you can get away with being an eyewateringly stupid and tendentious apologist - spineless apologist.

Increasingly desperate for attention you mendacious person, Soren?   ::)

The viper lurking in our bosom
Recent tragedies have led to a long-overdue Australian awakening to the threat posed by Islamist ideology

Muslims must acknowledge our terrible ownership of Islamism: while all Muslims are not Islamists, all Islamists are Muslims. Islamism is birthed of Muslims, not of Islam. Islamism shelters from within Islam, but deserves no such protection, least of all from Muslims. Islamism preys on the ignorance of Muslims, and the beneficence of non-Muslims. Islamism exploits the religious privileges accorded to faith in secular democracies while an imposter posturing as a spiritual belief.

Distinguishing Islam, a heterogeneous, pluralistic, spiritual monotheism, from Islamism, an expressly political, totalitarian, religionised neo-fascism reliant on the twin genocidal buttresses of jihadist violence and virulent anti-Semitism is the work of Muslims, and by and large, solely of Muslims. It is only legitimate Muslims who can strangle our deadly Mar-e-Asteen; the viper in our bosom.

The task is monstrous. Islamism has long been nurtured by opportunist Muslim powers. Islamism inspires the lethally anti-Semitic charters of Hamas and Hezbollah, legitimizes the barbarity of Isis, buoys the battle cries of Boko Haram, demands the Taleb assassinate Malala, drives the executioners of Pakistani polio workers, and is the handmaiden of rebel opponents to the butcher Assad. Islamism exploits the mechanics of democracy as it infects the organs of democracy. Islamism alone, under the aegis of the wahabi theocracy of Saudi Arabia, and its eager sidekick Pakistan, has pushed for multiple UN resolutions to criminalise ‘Islamophobia’ while the phobia itself remains undefined, deliberately so.

Citizens approached me about the Australian jihadist whose seven year old son was photographed with a head his father had severed. How could this originate in Australia? Their disbelief mirrored my own anguish – how could Islam birth such sadists among us?

Wherever there is freedom to engage in ideas, we run the risk of rearing Islamism in our midst. Wherever there is cause for social ills, disparities, disenfranchisement, shielded from scrutiny, masquerading as faith Islamism will prey, and breed unchecked. Australia’s awakening today is a reminder we are all, in the free thinking world, caught in the crosshairs of a raging battle. If we are to evade the viper’s strike, it will demand not only an Australian, but an international awakening.

Qanta Ahmed 31 January 2015

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 11:13pm:

you mendacious person, Soren

Tut tut Brian, ad hominem, that's very naughty. ;D :o 8-) ::) ::) 8-) :o ;D

Soren wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 8:52am:

The viper lurking in our bosom ..... ..... Distinguishing Islam, a heterogeneous, pluralistic, spiritual monotheism, from Islamism,....is the work of Muslims,... ..... ..... Qanta Ahmed 31 January 2015

"Distinguishing Islam, a heterogeneous, pluralistic, spiritual monotheism, from Islamism,....is the work of Muslims,..."

Distinguishing ISLAM, from 'ISLAMISM' ?


"Tell him he's dreaming!"



It offends reason to even suggest that the tenets and laws and 'ideals' of Mainstream ISLAM are not in conflict with, and are not totally incompatible with, the ideals of open truth, justice, freedom and democracy.

Ideals which the majority of Australians would support,      ....but ideals which no moslem [the person who is wholly conversant with ISLAMIC 'ideals'] can with any honesty declare that he supports.

....except with a deceitful, LYING tongue.




.




Describing Mainstream ISLAM as 'heterogeneous, pluralistic, [and a] spiritual monotheism,' offends all truth and reason;



THE HADITH....

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260




THE KORAN....

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29



ISLAMIC LAW....

"Ibn 'Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, "I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) "
fiqhussunnah/fus1_06




.





Yadda said....

Quote:

Dictionary; Muslim = = a follower of Islam. Google; Shahada, confession of faith, of a muslim "There is no god except for Allah alone; and Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah." Today, many moslems - living in Australia - are insisting that we, Australians, must be forced to believe the incredible; "I'm a moslem, and i worship Allah, and i revere Mohammed his messenger. And i know that Allah calls for the enslavement and/or murder of all non-moslems - THROUGH JIHAD [religious fighting, when moslems have that 'opportunity']. But i don't follow that part of my faith. HONEST!" Dictionary; incredible = = 1 impossible to believe. 2 difficult to believe; extraordinary.

.





CRIMINAL INTENT, IN THE MOSLEM HEART
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1252898491/0#0

Quote:

Every moslem in Australia [and indeed, every moslem on the planet], by self declaring as a moslem, is self declaring a criminal intent [by our laws] against local non-moslems. ISLAM is a criminal compact among moslems, to wage a violent 'religious' war against non-moslems ['unbelievers']. .....Basically, fundamentally, all ISLAMIC doctrine translates as enmity, and encourages [criminal] violence, towards ALL non-moslems.

+++






Quote:

A Study in Muslim Doctrine "...while sincere friendship with non-Muslims is forbidden, insincere friendship - whenever beneficial to Muslims - is not."

http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine



Google,
smile to the face "while our hearts curse them"