abu_rashid wrote on Oct 7^th, 2008 at 8:55pm:


Interpretation is everything. In fact Islam is much more fragmented than a simple sunni / shia split. There are many, many echoes of the immutable word of god, and one needs to look no further for proofs than the history of Islamic religious wars, still ongoing.
At least the christians put it all behind them in the 17th century. (yes, the irish had a bit of a bit of a political biffo in the guise of religious disagreement. Or the other way around).

I'm putting my 2 cent in pretty late in the piece.

I don't agree with the Indonesian authorities in wanting to introduce a bikini ban (on religious grounds). Sure, Bali is part of Indonesia and this is their domestic issue etc etc. However, Indonesia is largely secular, and in some areas Shariah Law has governs peacefully and adjacent to Secular Law. In the last few years the harmony of races coexisting together is being sabotaged by radical(?) elements who wants to impose their religious will and laws onto non-Muslims. They want Shariah Law to apply to all regardless of whether the population is Muslim or not. It's happening in Malaysia and it's happening in Bali.

I have spent a lot of time in both countries, and these issues vexes me.

Quote:


When Muslims even mentioned the idea of allowing polygamy, everyone was in an uproar, and personally I can't see any secular reason whatsoever to deny polygamy, therefore it must obviously be the government of Australia enforcing their Christian standards of marriage onto a minority. Do you agree with this freediver and AcidMonkey?

Quote:


It's no lie, because I don't think anyone's ever claimed that Islam as a ruling system wouldn't obviously implement it's laws on the entire society. As does secularism, as does communism as does every state ideology. Doesn't mean that a Communist can't live peacefully in a Democratic country, nor that a Muslim can't live peacefully in a Christian or Secular country. Your attempt to confuse the issue of a state implementing it's laws with the issue of individuals living in a society is daft.

Quote:


So it's exactly the same issue, except the legislative boot is on the other foot.

Quote:


I don't remember anything other than "Why should we have to bloody accomodate these foreigners!!! if you don't like our laws the way they are don't come here, if you're already here, get the hell out".. is that what you mean?

Quote:


I don't.

Quote:


Again you obviously don't seem to understand the issue you're trying to debate. Individual rituals are generally the business of individuals under Islam. Islamic law for instance does not state a Christian has to pray or that a Jew has to brush his teeth, these things are prescribed for Muslims only. So the only laws the Islamic ideology implements on non-Muslim citizens are those pertaining to society in general. Criminal law, public decency, traffic laws, taxes, finance laws etc. And in these areas EVERY single other idoelogy clearly DOES implement these kinds of laws/systems on all their citizens.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 7:09pm:


They did in USSR. They had Moral Code Of Communism Builder. Police and state sponsored vigilante used to forcibly make very bad and short haircuts to youth who tried to imitate fashion of  western pop culture back in 60s. There even was something about it in Law Codec.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 8:11pm:


As recommended by many Muslim scholars, jizya was to be collected in a humiliating procedure:

[T]he collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing…, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel must place money on the scales, while the collector holds him by his beard and strikes him on both cheeks.(Al-Nawawi)[117]

Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya… on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… (Al-Ghazali)[118]

Following this [the handing over of the jizya payment] the emir will strike the dhimmi on the neck with his fist; a man will stand near the emir to chase away the dhimmi in haste; then a second and a third will come forward to suffer the same treatment as well as all those to follow. All [Muslims] will be admitted to enjoy this spectacle. (Ahmad al-Dardi al-Adawi)[119]

On the day of payment they [the dhimmis] shall be assembled in a public place … They should be standing there waiting in the lowest and dirtiest place. The acting officials representing the law shall be placed above them and shall adopt a threatening attitude so that it seems to them, as well as to the others, that our object is to degrade them by pretending to take their possessions. They will realize that we are doing them a favor in accepting from them the jizya and letting them go free. They then shall be dragged one by one for the exacting of payment. When paying, the dhimmi will receive a blow and will be thrown aside so that he will think that he has escaped the sword through this. This is the way that the friends of the Lord, of the first and last generations, will act toward their infidel enemies, for might belongs to Allah, to His Prophet, and to the believers. (Muhammad Abd al-Karim al-Maghili)[120]





Just like the muslims in the UK and Australia? You are lying and you know it.

They did in USSR. They had Moral Code Of Communism Builder.

Not everything the USSR did represent communist ideology. Of course countries need traffic laws, but communism is not going to tell you what they should be.

So people could just walk around naked? Come on, pretty much every state has public decency laws, stop being ridiculous freediver.

See above.

It's a fact that different countries have different public decency and traffic laws, and that they are generally reflective of their ideology. Countries that have very liberal ideologies like Canada for instance, permit women to freely expose their breasts (although It'd probably result in a nasty case of frostbite on some little extremities), whilst countries with more conservative ideologies do not permit this, such as the USA.

Countries like Germany for instance have no speed limits on their motorways, whilst other countries like Australia do... There's no universal traffic laws, and there's no universal public decency laws. Different states permit different things, and that's just the way it is. You just seem to think Islam has no right to assert itself, as other ideologies do in this way... It's quite clear, that you're just against Islam, plain and simple.