Creeping Sharia - It's not just a bumper sticker

[Kalam]

The argument was made that there are "different punishments for the same crime" depending on if the perpetrator is a Muslim or an unbeliever. Do you have any evidence that a Muslim would not be punished for repeatedly slandering and abusing Rasul Allah (SAWS)?

 

[logical4u]

You gave the link. The rules are very discrimminitory against "unbelievers". The rules do not give the same "rights" to "unbelievers".

Examples:
a school teacher being destroyed because her class voted to name a teddy bear, mohammed

Please prove that this punishment is Shari'i by linking it to a specific injunction from Islamic scripture.

any woman that is raped, and denied justice because four men will not testify for her

Four witnesses are only required in cases of adultery. They are not required for a qadi to pass judgment on a rapist.


Please prove that this punishment is Shari'i by linking it to a specific injunction from Islamic scripture.

Rape and molestation by family members is comprised of two crimes - rape and incest. The punishment is death.


Please give a scriptural example of this. Everyone has the right to defend themselves in court.

Daniel Pearl

Due process was not observed.

Is that enough? If it isn't you can go to any news website and find examples, almost daily of the violence done to "unbelievers" in the name of allah.

It's abundantly clear that you have no idea what Shari'ah is - you're using it as a general label for any sort of violence perpetrated in the name of Islam. Shari'ah is the system of divine law contained in the Qur'an and authentic hadith collections; if a punishment cannot be found there, it cannot be considered Shari'i.

You are right. I have no idea of what Shari'ah is. It is changed according to the circumstance or it would be easy to explain.
It also changes according to the law-breaker.

You said that you had a "great" community 1400 (that is one thousand four hundred years ago) where this "system" worked. It could not maintain then, and it cannot be maintained now.
You said that Shari'ah worked only when the people wanted it; in Afganistan, as well as other muslim controlled countries, the people do not want Shari'ah law, but there is no choice (well there is, if they disagree, their families are killed or tortured followed by them).

If this is such a great "system", why can't you show one place where it works? Why can't you name one country that has a muslim ruling it, where people want to go to raise their families and live under this "great system"?

The answer is: it is not a great system. Islam can have the greatest, most spiritual people in the world, but if they cannot disagree with management, there is no freedom, no rights, no improvement. Islam, "the system" is equal misery. There is no hope, there is no love of fellow humans, just intimidation and misery.
"Your prophet" that died without leaving a clear leader, without leaving any system of rule, did muslims a great dis-service. Any person that is ruthless and power hungary can become a cleric and use terror to force the "spiritual" to go along with his policies, and acts. The only way he can be removed is by deception or blood shed.

The intolerance and hatred of all things not islam is demonstrated by every protest over an ignorant act (people do not get that mohammed is treated like 'they' would treat a diety), or every celebration over each successful terrorist act against non-muslims.

Muslims in the USA declare their freedom and enjoy living in this country, but they do not vocally stand independent of their deceptive leaders that would bring Shari'ah (and subjugation) to the world. The ones that play word games with Shari'ah not being implemented as it should are very similar to the communists, the homosexual activists and the far leftists: they will not be honest about their true objective and try to introduce it slowly with deception and mis-representation. That is why they DARE not define it, DARE not explain it, truly, and DARE not state their true intentions.

You want to play word games. I do not. Demonstrate where Shari'ah law actually works, or state that it does not. If it works better than any system in use: fine, show it. If not, don't bother with the giant IFs, and blaming other people. The persian empire had its day. The followers of islam tried to repeat that, centuries ago, and left a path of blood where ever they went. What great improvements have they made for mankind, lately? Why would anyone want to participate in that "system" if they KNEW THE TRUTH, that there are other options, ones that do not demand that you and your family live in misery and trust no one.

 

[logical4u]

The argument was made that there are "different punishments for the same crime" depending on if the perpetrator is a Muslim or an unbeliever. Do you have any evidence that a Muslim would not be punished for repeatedly slandering and abusing Rasul Allah (SAWS)?

Would the muslim be allowed to defend himself? "Unbelievers" are not allowed that basic instinct. They are not allowed to defend themselves in front of the "believers".

 

[Kalam]

You are right. I have no idea of what Shari'ah is. It is changed according to the circumstance or it would be easy to explain. It also changes according to the law-breaker.

Incorrect. Shari'ah is this:
Qur'an - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And these:
Hadith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have been asked to point to specific passages from scripture because you've claimed that certain incidents are "Shari'ah". Why haven't you been able to do so?

You said that you had a "great" community 1400 (that is one thousand four hundred years ago) where this "system" worked. It could not maintain then, and it cannot be maintained now.

Not with non-Muslims continually interfering in our affairs, no. When the forces of oppression are

You said that Shari'ah worked only when the people wanted it; in Afganistan, as well as other muslim controlled countries, the people do not want Shari'ah law,

I assume you have the results of some sort of survey to back this statement up.

but there is no choice (well there is, if they disagree, their families are killed or tortured followed by them).

If this is such a great "system", why can't you show one place where it works? Why can't you name one country that has a muslim ruling it, where people want to go to raise their families and live under this "great system"?

Because it does not currently exist on a nation-wide level. That problem and its solution are explained in this book:

Ma'alim fi al-Tariq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The answer is: it is not a great system. Islam can have the greatest, most spiritual people in the world, but if they cannot disagree with management, there is no freedom, no rights, no improvement. Islam, "the system" is equal misery. There is no hope, there is no love of fellow humans, just intimidation and misery.

"Your prophet" that died without leaving a clear leader, without leaving any system of rule, did muslims a great dis-service. Any person that is ruthless and power hungary can become a cleric and use terror to force the "spiritual" to go along with his policies, and acts. The only way he can be removed is by deception or blood shed.

Substance-less drivel. I'm interested in facts, not palaver. Save your rants for church and come back when you can substantiate your claims with actual information.

 

[Kalam]

The argument was made that there are "different punishments for the same crime" depending on if the perpetrator is a Muslim or an unbeliever. Do you have any evidence that a Muslim would not be punished for repeatedly slandering and abusing Rasul Allah (SAWS)?

Would the muslim be allowed to defend himself? "Unbelievers" are not allowed that basic instinct. They are not allowed to defend themselves in front of the "believers".

Prove it using scripture.

 

[Hister]

The argument was made that there are "different punishments for the same crime" depending on if the perpetrator is a Muslim or an unbeliever. Do you have any evidence that a Muslim would not be punished for repeatedly slandering and abusing Rasul Allah (SAWS)?

Would the muslim be allowed to defend himself? "Unbelievers" are not allowed that basic instinct. They are not allowed to defend themselves in front of the "believers".

Prove it using scripture.

Sorry, I ran out of toilet paper so I used the pages of my koran. Is that what you guys do too?

 

[logical4u]

The argument was made that there are "different punishments for the same crime" depending on if the perpetrator is a Muslim or an unbeliever. Do you have any evidence that a Muslim would not be punished for repeatedly slandering and abusing Rasul Allah (SAWS)?

Would the muslim be allowed to defend himself? "Unbelievers" are not allowed that basic instinct. They are not allowed to defend themselves in front of the "believers".

Prove it using scripture.

You "say" that you are interested in facts. I have asked you to demonstrate where this works.
I will not play the scripture game with you
#1 I do not know enough about the scripture to discuss it
#2 The part that I have read is full of inuendos, and false statements, that slightly resembles the Bible, but ARE different
Why would I use something that I do not believe?

If you cannot show where Shari'ah law has worked, according to you, not one government system in thirteen hundred years, I feel the "facts" demonstrate, not only does it NOT WORK, there is no muslim country with muslim leaders that WANT it to be used.
As for those that do not want Shari’ah, there is information being smuggled out of Iran and Afganistan about the abuses and cries for help. They are largely ignored by the rest of the world, because the brutality of islam hides behind the spirituality of its descent believers.
Shari’ah is a myth, to keep "believers" under the control of corrupt governments. To "export" it, would only make other countries the same as the countries in the ME. If you follow where islam has grown in numbers, you see a decrease in freedom, and people living in fear. Why would you want that here? Honestly, please answer the question. You cannot make it the mythological society from the 600s. You can only make a country like:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

Everyone of these nations has a large muslim population. Which one has been made better by Shari’ah?
According to you, none of them use Shari’ah as the national government; doesn’t that tell you something that if a country is 100 % muslim and Shari’ah is not being used, maybe it just DOESN’T WORK.
Do you see a country listed that the USA should use as a model, to go in that direction? Do you see a country there that is known for its human rights, personal freedom, technology, medical care, generosity, integrity?
If you don’t and you still claim to want Shari’ah law in the USA, you are being false to yourself and to others.
It is your turn, lay out the “FACTS”. Show us how Shari’ah can possibly work to improve anyone’s life (beside the brutal thugs that enforce it, the PIPs). Show us how it has improved anything, anywhere it has been implemented (and that doesn’t mean changing one brutal system into a “slightly” less brutal system), real improvements that can be shown as FACTS.

 

[Kalam]

I will not play the scripture game with you
#1 I do not know enough about the scripture to discuss it

Thank you for admitting that you shouldn't have involved yourself in this discussion in the first place. A discussion of Shari'ah is a discussion of scripture, which you now say you know nothing about.

 

[Hister]

I will not play the scripture game with you
#1 I do not know enough about the scripture to discuss it

Thank you for admitting that you shouldn't have involved yourself in this discussion in the first place. A discussion of Shari'ah is a discussion of scripture, which you now say you know nothing about.

A discussion of sharia law is a discussion about chopping hands, selling little girls into marriage, stoning, floggings... Is that was you support Kalam?
Wouldn't surprise me you support sharia, the only way a carpet kisser like you can get a wife is to buy one.

 

[logical4u]

I will not play the scripture game with you
#1 I do not know enough about the scripture to discuss it

Thank you for admitting that you shouldn't have involved yourself in this discussion in the first place. A discussion of Shari'ah is a discussion of scripture, which you now say you know nothing about.

"you" said you want facts. It seems that you cannot accept the fact that there is no society where Shari'ah works. It seems you cannot present ANY facts to how Shari'ah can work, or any evidence that it has worked for the last thirteen hundred years.

If you want someone to be "open" about an issue, you should be willing to use examples and facts to demonstrate the truthfulness and earnestness of your beliefs. Since you have failed to do either, my opinion of Shari'ah as an unbeliever is based on your words: there is no place that it works and there is no muslim country that uses it either.

You want the USA to accept a system of law with no facts, no examples, just your word. I am not impressed. Islam (Shari'ah) as a government IS A FAILURE EVERYWHERE IT HAS BEEN PUT INTO PLACE.

 

[Kalam]

"you" said you want facts. It seems that you cannot accept the fact that there is no society where Shari'ah works. It seems you cannot present ANY facts to how Shari'ah can work, or any evidence that it has worked for the last thirteen hundred years.

Shari'ah has always lived in the hearts of Muslims and has been practiced on a personal level since it was revealed. Moreover, there have been several leaders after Muhammad (SAWS) that have earned the right to be called rashid.

Abu Bakr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Umar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Uthman ibn Affan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Suleiman the Magnificent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abdul Hamid I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And possibly:
As-Saffah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harun al-Rashid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want someone to be "open" about an issue, you should be willing to use examples and facts to demonstrate the truthfulness and earnestness of your beliefs. Since you have failed to do either, my opinion of Shari'ah as an unbeliever is based on your words: there is no place that it works and there is no muslim country that uses it either.

Your position seems to be that if a system of governance is not currently in use, it has "failed" and can never be successfully implemented. I'm sure that I don't need to walk you through the serious logical flaws in this argument...

Since republican forms of government largely died out after Julius Caesar's refusal to relinquish his power, should America's founding fathers have regarded republicanism as a "failure"?

You want the USA to accept a system of law

You are mistaken. If you read my posts, you'll find that this isn't what I've said at all.

with no facts, no examples, just your word. I am not impressed.

The facts are in the Qur'an and the ahadith; the khulafa I listed above are examples of its success. I linked to Wikipedia for the sake of convenience, but you should be able to get an idea of what kind of leaders they were should you choose to peruse those articles.

Islam (Shari'ah) as a government IS A FAILURE EVERYWHERE IT HAS BEEN PUT INTO PLACE.

According to your argument, so was democratic republicanism before 1791.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Taliban was a valid Shar'ee government. The methods adopted by the Taliban
were in accordance to the Shari'ah. In the Shari'ah. The Imaam (Islamic
ruler) has the right and duty to enforce the external laws of the Shari'ah.
This had been the practice of the four rightly guided Khulafaa Raashideen.

hhttp://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/askimam/ask.pl?q=5115&act=view

 

[Kalam]

Taliban was a valid Shar'ee government. The methods adopted by the Taliban
were in accordance to the Shari'ah. In the Shari'ah. The Imaam (Islamic
ruler) has the right and duty to enforce the external laws of the Shari'ah.
This had been the practice of the four rightly guided Khulafaa Raashideen.

hhttp://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/askimam/ask.pl?q=5115&act=view

Adherence to Pashtunwali and other tribal codes nullified any Shari'i legitimacy the Taliban may have had. It is an ethnic movement and Shari'ah does not permit division along racial or ethnic lines. Furthermore:

O you who believe, forbid not the good things which Allah has made lawful for you and exceed not the limits. Surely Allah loves not those who exceed the limits. - 5:87​

Banning things that are not forbidden by Shari'ah (ie: kites, the education of women, movies and television, the internet) is a form of bid'ah.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Taliban was a valid Shar'ee government. The methods adopted by the Taliban
were in accordance to the Shari'ah. In the Shari'ah. The Imaam (Islamic
ruler) has the right and duty to enforce the external laws of the Shari'ah.
This had been the practice of the four rightly guided Khulafaa Raashideen.

hhttp://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/askimam/ask.pl?q=5115&act=view

Adherence to Pashtunwali and other tribal codes nullified any Shari'i legitimacy the Taliban may have had. It is an ethnic movement and Shari'ah does not permit division along racial or ethnic lines. Furthermore:

O you who believe, forbid not the good things which Allah has made lawful for you and exceed not the limits. Surely Allah loves not those who exceed the limits. - 5:87​

Banning things that are not forbidden by Shari'ah (ie: kites, the education of women, movies and television, the internet) is a form of bid'ah.

Ridicules.
Anything that distracts from spreading IslAM or remembering allah or spreading mischief is unislamic .
As are acts that mimic other religions
.
BUT HEY YOUR THE "EXPERT"

What is the ruling on watching television?
Islam Question and Answer

What is the Islamic ruling on festivals like basant (kite flying) famous in Indo-Pak

 

[Kalam]

Ridicules.
Anything that distracts from spreading IslAM or remembering allah or spreading mischief is unislamic .

There is nothing un-Islamic about any sort of leisure that doesn't compromise a Muslim's imaan. If these "scholars" truly thought that the Taliban were a Shari'i society, they wouldn't be using the internet to disseminate their beliefs. Allah ta'ala does not look kindly upon hypocrites.

As are acts that mimic other religions

If an act doesn't directly involve non-Islamic religious beliefs, it cannot be considered haram as long as one's niyyah is pure. Dismissing all kite-flying as a form of Hindu worship is stupid and a form of bid'ah.

BUT HEY YOUR THE "EXPERT"

My, we sure are fussy today.

Blind deference to anyone other than Allah in religious matters is un-Islamic. Every edict must be questioned unless the 'alim that issues it proves that it is firmly based in scripture.

And when it is said to them, Come to that which Allah has revealed and to the Messenger, they say: Sufficient for us is that wherein We found our fathers. What? Even though their fathers knew nothing and had no guidance? - 5:104
​

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Scholars and imams see it differently.

You have reversed yourself before you will again , you should post about things other than islam until you figure it out.

 

[Kalam]

Scholars and imams see it differently.

You'll be hard pressed to find proof of this opinion being universal. Anyway, "scholars and imams" in the employ of jahili states are suspect to begin with.

You have reversed yourself before you will again , you should post about things other than islam until you figure it out.

I am not the subject of this discussion.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Scholars and imams see it differently.

You'll be hard pressed to find proof of this opinion being universal. Anyway, "scholars and imams" in the employ of jahili states are suspect to begin with.

You have reversed yourself before you will again , you should post about things other than islam until you figure it out.

I am not the subject of this discussion.

Opinions of yours are as suspects as those who you abhor .
I don't post as the voice of Islam here.You do.
I just show your opinion is subject to scrutiny that you rarely provide.

 

[logical4u]

"you" said you want facts. It seems that you cannot accept the fact that there is no society where Shari'ah works. It seems you cannot present ANY facts to how Shari'ah can work, or any evidence that it has worked for the last thirteen hundred years.

Shari'ah has always lived in the hearts of Muslims and has been practiced on a personal level since it was revealed. Moreover, there have been several leaders after Muhammad (SAWS) that have earned the right to be called rashid.

Abu Bakr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Umar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Uthman ibn Affan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Suleiman the Magnificent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abdul Hamid I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And possibly:
As-Saffah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harun al-Rashid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want someone to be "open" about an issue, you should be willing to use examples and facts to demonstrate the truthfulness and earnestness of your beliefs. Since you have failed to do either, my opinion of Shari'ah as an unbeliever is based on your words: there is no place that it works and there is no muslim country that uses it either.

Your position seems to be that if a system of governance is not currently in use, it has "failed" and can never be successfully implemented. I'm sure that I don't need to walk you through the serious logical flaws in this argument...

Since republican forms of government largely died out after Julius Caesar's refusal to relinquish his power, should America's founding fathers have regarded republicanism as a "failure"?


You are mistaken. If you read my posts, you'll find that this isn't what I've said at all.

with no facts, no examples, just your word. I am not impressed.

The facts are in the Qur'an and the ahadith; the khulafa I listed above are examples of its success. I linked to Wikipedia for the sake of convenience, but you should be able to get an idea of what kind of leaders they were should you choose to peruse those articles.

Islam (Shari'ah) as a government IS A FAILURE EVERYWHERE IT HAS BEEN PUT INTO PLACE.

According to your argument, so was democratic republicanism before 1791.

So... your list of successes of Shari'ah law were those of WAR states and the years immediately following WARS where other "subjugated" territories paid homage to the 'caliph'. Most of them "reformed" (that would mean it wasn't working) government systems. Most from the brutal years of islam subjugating the ME. The most recent from the 1700s, again involving WAR.

And no, I did not say that since it isn't in use, it doesn't work. I said that the activist muslims that proclaim this is the great way, do not use it to govern themselves, yet seek to export it to the rest of the world (Kind of like a scam artist would do).
What I have said and will repeat: the muslim activists have had fourteen hundred years to get the system right. They haven't. Quit trying to sell it as a "great" form of government. Shari'ah as a form of government is a monumental failure. That being said, I will point out that it works great in conquering and overthrowing nations (that then get to live in abject misery under that system).

BTW, I don't believe that a democratic republic was tried before the 1700s. It is not a perfect system. It cannot work where a majority of the people are corrupt. If the people want freedom, and liberty (and the responsibility that goes with it), I believe it has "proven" itself to be the most prosperous, and least corrupt nation to date. Maybe you can prove me wrong there, but it would be highly prejudiced to personal view. I believe the FACTS prove this nation to be the greatest to date, overall (again, that is not saying it is PERFECT).

 

[camcooh2]

This whole idea of Sharia law catching on is just hysteria. Inside of two generations, these women wearing black burqas and head scarves will be sporting thong underwear and huge tattoos in the small of their backs. Their toothless elders will be appalled but they won't be able to do their traditional stoning or head-cutting-offing in the US cuz that would be a hate crime. They will be Americanized.