Global call for Islam across the world

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"][QUOTE="SaudiFury"] Rather then be busy defending the Quran/Hadiths and say that honor killings don't exist. Why not just condemn honor killings of all kinds. FULL STOP. Take it from a Muslim (if you think of me that way even), don't be so damn concerned about what people (non-Muslims) think of the texts, be more concerned about the real life women (and men in some cases) being brutalized and killed for honor.SaudiFury

No dice

Guys I think we should all relax, sit down and get stoned.

tenaka2

Only if you buy this time

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="Nayef_shroof"] No, it's to ensure they aren't subjugated by non-muslim men and denied the practice of Islam within their households Nayef_shroof

Why can't you have a marriage that doesn't involve subjugation? And why are you assuming that non-Muslim men will necessarily subjugate their Muslim wives? Surely if some loving Jewish or Christian husband respects his Muslim wife as his coequal, there is no danger of subjugation. Not all of them believe in patriarchal marriage.

And in any case, where is the evidence that this is the reason for that ruling?

Change the thread title, its misleading.

The video refers to 'The Muslim World', all that will happen is a bunch of people will come in the thread without clicking the link to spew a load of Islamophobic virtrol.

Zaibach

Don't worry guys, it's a religion of peace.

[QUOTE="Zaibach"]

Change the thread title, its misleading.

The video refers to 'The Muslim World', all that will happen is a bunch of people will come in the thread without clicking the link to spew a load of Islamophobic virtrol.

th3warr1or

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="Zaibach"]

Change the thread title, its misleading.

The video refers to 'The Muslim World', all that will happen is a bunch of people will come in the thread without clicking the link to spew a load of Islamophobic virtrol.

Allthishate

[QUOTE="Zaibach"]

Change the thread title, its misleading.

The video refers to 'The Muslim World', all that will happen is a bunch of people will come in the thread without clicking the link to spew a load of Islamophobic virtrol.

th3warr1or

Sharia has dfferent interprations .... what you fear is the guy (wz the beard) that will apply .... what's so bad in it that you fear anyway?

Sharia has dfferent interprations .... what you fear is the guy (wz the beard) that will apply .... what's so bad in it that you fear anyway?

omho88

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="Zaibach"]

Change the thread title, its misleading.

The video refers to 'The Muslim World', all that will happen is a bunch of people will come in the thread without clicking the link to spew a load of Islamophobic virtrol.

killa4lyfe

They took r jerrrbbsss!!! :P

Sharia has dfferent interprations .... what you fear is the guy (wz the beard) that will apply .... what's so bad in it that you fear anyway?

omho88

No reason to have it at all. I never understand the thought process of "if we have one religon we will all be as one". Well we could do that but without religon. Religon is simply not needed at all. Its pointless.

[QUOTE="omho88"]

Sharia has dfferent interprations .... what you fear is the guy (wz the beard) that will apply .... what's so bad in it that you fear anyway?

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="omho88"]

Sharia has dfferent interprations .... what you fear is the guy (wz the beard) that will apply .... what's so bad in it that you fear anyway?

Darkman2007

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="Zaibach"]

Change the thread title, its misleading.

The video refers to 'The Muslim World', all that will happen is a bunch of people will come in the thread without clicking the link to spew a load of Islamophobic virtrol.

killa4lyfe

How is that even remotely similar? Is there a country run by gays for gays? There are several run by Muslims for Muslims, and if you're gay good luck.

Also, I never said that he's Muslim, so your whole "Obama is gay because he believes in gay-marriage" comparison is way off.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="omho88"]

Sharia has dfferent interprations .... what you fear is the guy (wz the beard) that will apply .... what's so bad in it that you fear anyway?

omho88

look up the word dhimmi. At the time dhimmi was a huge step up to the old rule. which was convert or die. Being a dhimmi meant (means) being able to have and practice your religion, EXCEPT you cannot prosletyze to Muslims (but Muslims can to you), and you pay a tax (though at the same time you were not required to fight in the army so there was that benefit...).

There was also no guarantee though that the practice of religion would be respected, it often went by whims of whoever was in charge. For a very long time, for just over a 1,000 years, there were very few places that had such a thing.

In midevil Europe, you were either a Christian or dead, and the only non-Christians allowed could be diplomats (usually from Muslim lands) and even then those non-Christians were dropping dead all the time in Christian lands. So in comparison the Muslim world is a huge step up.

but then comes the enlightenment period and attitudes towards religion itself, and religion and state changed. Now religious freedoms greatly outweigh those in Muslim countries, and the dhimmi system is now a very old and archaic system for treating religious minorities.

but even then Dhimmi was not equal to Muslim, that's why Darkman2007 says he doesn't want to be a 2nd class citizen.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="SaudiFury"] look up the word dhimmi. At the time dhimmi was a huge step up to the old rule. which was convert or die. Being a dhimmi meant (means) being able to have and practice your religion, EXCEPT you cannot prosletyze to Muslims (but Muslims can to you), and you pay a tax (though at the same time you were not required to fight in the army so there was that benefit...). There was also no guarantee though that the practice of religion would be respected, it often went by whims of whoever was in charge. For a very long time, for just over a 1,000 years, there were very places that had such a thing. In midevil Europe, you were either a Christian or dead, and the only non-Christians allowed could be diplomats (usually from Muslim lands) and even then those non-Christians were dropping dead all the time in Christian lands. So in comparison the Muslim world is a huge step up. but then comes the enlightenment period and attitudes towards religion itself, and religion and state changed. Now religious freedoms greatly outweigh those in Muslim countries, and the dhimmi system is now a very old and archaic system for treating religious minorities. but even then Dhimmi was not equal to Muslim, that's why Darkman2007 says he doesn't want to be a 2nd class citizen. omho88

Shariah is the organic law system that Islamic theocracies derive their rule,

Even in supposed to be secular states like Egypt, Shariah law exists in some capacity.

Now I will concede there are differing opinions on what and how to implement Shariah, what an Egyptian thinks is best, a Saudi will think is too liberal. but the fact is, their still deriving their laws and precedents from 1400 year old texts, that are talking about a world that largely no longer exists.

Western systems of law has it's issues, but when it comes to treatment of religious minorities it is in virtually every category better then what's going in most Muslim countries.

and i say that with no enjoyment at all. k...

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="SaudiFury"] look up the word dhimmi. At the time dhimmi was a huge step up to the old rule. which was convert or die. Being a dhimmi meant (means) being able to have and practice your religion, EXCEPT you cannot prosletyze to Muslims (but Muslims can to you), and you pay a tax (though at the same time you were not required to fight in the army so there was that benefit...). There was also no guarantee though that the practice of religion would be respected, it often went by whims of whoever was in charge. For a very long time, for just over a 1,000 years, there were very places that had such a thing. In midevil Europe, you were either a Christian or dead, and the only non-Christians allowed could be diplomats (usually from Muslim lands) and even then those non-Christians were dropping dead all the time in Christian lands. So in comparison the Muslim world is a huge step up. but then comes the enlightenment period and attitudes towards religion itself, and religion and state changed. Now religious freedoms greatly outweigh those in Muslim countries, and the dhimmi system is now a very old and archaic system for treating religious minorities. but even then Dhimmi was not equal to Muslim, that's why Darkman2007 says he doesn't want to be a 2nd class citizen. omho88

nonsense, and you know it, minorities were not equal, there were various laws agaisnt them, usually to humiliate them, everything from heavy restrictions on construction of houses of worship , to limiting where they could live, to not being able to testify against Muslims in a court of law

[QUOTE="omho88"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] put it this way, in general , Islam treated minorities better than Europe until around 400 years ago , after which Europe caught up and surpassed it (though mostly W.Europe, the East was essentially 500 years behined) although even in the Islamic world, there were differences, there was no way to compare Al Andalus to Yemen for instance, and even within countries things changed over time (Al Andalus was ok , until the Almohads took over)SaudiFury

Shariah is the organic law system that Islamic theocracies derive their rule,

Even in supposed to be secular states like Egypt, Shariah law exists in some capacity.

Now I will concede there are differing opinions on what and how to implement Shariah, what an Egyptian thinks is best, a Saudi will think is too liberal. but the fact is, their still deriving their laws and precedents from 1400 year old texts, that are talking about a world that largely no longer exists.

Western systems of law has it's issues, but when it comes to treatment of religious minorities it is in virtually every category better then what's going in most Muslim countries.

and i say that with no enjoyment at all. k...

That means that certain hadiths/hadith volumes are deemed more credible (Or even outright incredulous) than others. Citing WikiISlam as proof is laughable as well, considering their notoriety as an anti-Muslim siteNayef_shroof

[QUOTE="omho88"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] put it this way, in general , Islam treated minorities better than Europe until around 400 years ago , after which Europe caught up and surpassed it (though mostly W.Europe, the East was essentially 500 years behined) although even in the Islamic world, there were differences, there was no way to compare Al Andalus to Yemen for instance, and even within countries things changed over time (Al Andalus was ok , until the Almohads took over)Darkman2007

nonsense, and you know it, minorities were not equal, there were various laws agaisnt them, usually to humiliate them, everything from heavy restrictions on construction of houses of worship , to limiting where they could live, to not being able to testify against Muslims in a court of law

There is nothing in islam that really forbid you from building ur own place and pray for God in it? just to be fair .... there are some issues with the non ibrahimic religions which I dun like how the country handles them .... but we are debating it rightnow !!

That means that certain hadiths/hadith volumes are deemed more credible (Or even outright incredulous) than others. Citing WikiISlam as proof is laughable as well, considering their notoriety as an anti-Muslim siteNayef_shroof

First you just confirmed my point, coz since you claim that sharia is the basic law for all these countries yet some of them are completely different from eachother ... which means complete different understanding to the same thing that could work the best for each country ..... not all of them work as great as the other. But I still dun get what's bothering you with 1400 years old text .... I do realize many stuff have changed but the core remains ....you are a human, you need some basic laws to protect you from others and vice versa .... you have urges, you needs some limits to protect you from becoming an animal .... you need morals .... all of these combined are religions .... things like that don't change by time. I dun see omho88

ok let me give a short example why i vouch for secular as a basis for law. Anything that is positive about Shariah law exists already within secularism. Anything negative that can be said about Shariah (by Muslims and non), does NOT under secular law.

I don't agree with wife beating, i don't agree with honor killing, don't agree in treating religious minorities as 2nd class citizens, i don't believe in treating apostates as though their traitors and need to have a chat with a sword. I abhore them. Sure, can an apostate be fvcking annoying, yeah. they totally can. as the phrase goes "there is no worse enemy then a former friend/ally". But i'd rather they be annoying as fvck then dead.

for instance with apostasy, the idea of killing apostates really came up in a time of war. During the wars Muhammed and Abu Bakr fought if you converted to Islam you could be spared death, or enslavement (something that every tribe and region was doing - not an excuse, just an explanation). Well.. what do you think some people are going to do? they're gonna save their sorry hides from meeting the sword. The Radi war that Abu Bakr fought was largely one over money, but because in those times (and this is why secularism seems alien to Muslims) back in those days religion and politics were one and the same. The tribe Abu Bakr fought refused to pay the zakat (charity). Prophet Muhammed went from community organizer (kinda like Jesus) to a leader of a city (Medina) that had both Pagans and Jews as their inhabitants, to leading armies and being leader of (basically) a country - all the while he was still a Prophet of God, then the next 4 perceding Caliphs were a level lower then Muhammed but nontheless considered the Rightly Guided Caliphs. In essence while the Prophet was not talking directly to God (as the Pope and Ayatollah are though to be) but he was pretty close to that sort of seat, thus in a sense there was no distinction between religion and politics. During those times when people converted, they'd do it save their own hides and some would say shout back that they lied.

So ok. what do we get? If your wanting to follow Shariah, and that means deriving laws from Quran, Hadiths (actions of Muhammed), preceding caliphs and other notable imam's, you now have literally centuries of precedents saying apostasy = death, because of what Muhammed and Abu Bakur did during times of war. but one of the primary reason why i'm for secular law, even as a Muslim is this. religion that is enforced and made compulsory and not our of personal sincerity is a farce. There should be no compulsion to follow it.

and i've head numerous times from Imams in both Saudi Arabia AND the USA saying that religion that is practiced like theater (just going through the motions) is wasted effort, for God knows if you a truly faithful. Quite the paradox i think.

I find it ironic that (and forgive me fellow Muslims if this hits a nerve) the Quran calls out and admonishes the Meccan Pagans for holding onto their religion merely because it was their forefathers religion. and this was said when Muhammed was trying to set up a co-existing religion amongst his fellow people in the Pagan-majority Mecca, and he and his followers were chased out of the city limits to starve and be discriminated against (Khadijah his first wife dying during this period) before marching off to Yathrib (soon to be called Medina). How ironic and sad things seem to me when looking at the Muslim world today.....

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="omho88"] He/she is right ..... some hadith are deemed more credible than others .... it's a fact .. and many scholers are calling for further filtering of Sonna.omho88

Hadith is a state of ownership it occurs before you Lostith.

Hadith is a state of ownership it occurs before you Lostith.tenaka2

i see this thread still kicking! :D

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

[QUOTE="omho88"] So it's not Sharia ..... it's the ppl !!! Just like I said earlier.omho88

nonsense, and you know it, minorities were not equal, there were various laws agaisnt them, usually to humiliate them, everything from heavy restrictions on construction of houses of worship , to limiting where they could live, to not being able to testify against Muslims in a court of law

There is nothing in islam that really forbid you from building ur own place and pray for God in it? just to be fair .... there are some issues with the non ibrahimic religions which I dun like how the country handles them .... but we are debating it rightnow !!

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="omho88"] He/she is right ..... some hadith are deemed more credible than others .... it's a fact .. and many scholers are calling for further filtering of Sonna.omho88

here. this is Hadith's according to Wiki.

and if you wanna read the Hadith's on this site.

all your gonna get from Zeviander's link are hadiths that are critical of Islam. If you want that, go ahead click it, but i figure i'd be FAIR and send you to all the hadiths not just cherry picking what i wanna show.

So basically you want a Nazi regime but instead of Christian Aryans you want it ruled by Muslims?

SaudiFury, i'm not a troll, i don't even know what means (internet language ugh)

but some of the points you made i agree at some degree

esepecially how all nations back bite each other, its true, its because we are without a leader, Muslims desperatly want the caliphate to come back because they are fed up of the corruption happening everywhere and believe this caliphate will be a step forward, all Muslims believe when Jesus comes back the Caliphate will be fully restored and he will lead us for 40 years, and then "Sharia" which means LAW (just letting the sheeps know what Shariah actually is) will be fully implemented, but before that Muslims are desperate and as a start want to get rid of current goverments,

are you proud of the governments in Saudi? they have the entire world resources beneath their feet and what to they do with it?

because each country has its own flag, people have become patriotic and have started to love their own selves while forgetting others, the Caliphate will definitely come back, our Prophet said it will be back once Jesus descends and kills the Anti Christ.

but as of now, the Muslims are in a state of loss and confusion, under constant war from the west and within themselves, our Prophet warned us that a time like this will come.