This topic is locked from further discussion.
I'm always entertained by good old fashioned Southern Baptist craziness. I was raised Presbyterian and our church's sermons put me to sleep.
FYI that sermon appears in World War Z.
But I remember my mom dragging me to church every Sunday morning and night, and Wednesday night and having to listen to this. It always seemed to me they were trying to scare people away. It was never a sermon on "Do unto others", but rather "HELL HELL HELL!"
I'm always entertained by good old fashioned Southern Baptist craziness. I was raised Presbyterian and our church's sermons put me to sleep.
FYI that sermon appears in World War Z.
How much of it and in what context? lol
I'm always entertained by good old fashioned Southern Baptist craziness. I was raised Presbyterian and our church's sermons put me to sleep.
FYI that sermon appears in World War Z.
How much of it and in what context? lol
Apparently this part. It's an off-TV recording and I can barely hear it, but it's there. I haven't seen the movie myself yet, but it's in my Netflix queue (why does that word even have more than one letter?)
I only know about it because I posted the link to that sermon here before and someone told me about it.
Oh the Middle East. Will you ever cease to be a shitstain on humanity?
Yes. When the religious people moderate themselves. For that to happen prosperity need to happen first. There is a nice link between poverty and religion.
Catch 22
I'm always entertained by good old fashioned Southern Baptist craziness. I was raised Presbyterian and our church's sermons put me to sleep.
FYI that sermon appears in World War Z.
How much of it and in what context? lol
Apparently this part. It's an off-TV recording and I can barely hear it, but it's there. I haven't seen the movie myself yet, but it's in my Netflix queue (why does that word even have more than one letter?)
I only know about it because I posted the link to that sermon here before and someone told me about it.
All I know is that this guy is a hoot.
All I know is that this guy is a hoot.
You might just love it here. lol
Oh the Middle East. Will you ever cease to be a shitstain on humanity?
Yes. When the religious people moderate themselves. For that to happen prosperity need to happen first. There is a nice link between poverty and religion.
Catch 22
No it's not. USA for example. Yes, the USA was hyper religious for a while and in some areas still is. Prosperity can happen in religious nations as some Muslim countries are rather rich too.
Oh the Middle East. Will you ever cease to be a shitstain on humanity?
Yes. When the religious people moderate themselves. For that to happen prosperity need to happen first. There is a nice link between poverty and religion.
Catch 22
No it's not. USA for example. Yes, the USA was hyper religious for a while and in some areas still is. Prosperity can happen in religious nations as some Muslim countries are rather rich too.
Christians aren't exactly killing each other, and the poorest regions are the most religious in the U.S.
Saudi Arabia is rich yet that's where Osama Bin Ladin was from
And US imperialism still tops that.
Airstrikes in Syria targeting fucking grain silos. Kill and starve the workers and youth of Syria, that'll get ISIS! (Fyi they're not really after ISIS, they're after Bashar Al Assad of Syria due to his economic and military ties to Russia and Iran).
Pakistan Taliban kill scores in Peshawar school massacre
Take that you stinking ISIS.
Thoughts?
Take that you stinking ISIL ?
Anyways its always sad to see truly disturbed people do disturbed things and i cant help but wonder why so many in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world actually support Taliban and other radical islamic groups.
Particular after something like this, what justification even in their insane religious mind can justify something like this, its kids and a massacre like this can hopefully only get everyone to turn away from them
This is a very sad incident... I don't know what to say...
If those self-proclaimed Islamic nation of yours Include Saudi Arabia then let me tell you that real Shariah is only practiced in Makkah and Madinah. The rest is just like the rest of the "Islamic" world. And since non-Muslims aren't allowed entry in Makkah, you can't say it's sexist or barbaric.
Nothing. If you want to think about something, think about the ones who call themselves Muslims yet their whole existence doesn't even reflect the tiniest ray of Islam.
If you steal something they will cut your hand for it and women can't drive cars there. Sexist and Barbaric. That's what "real" sharia is.
I'm defending Islam not Muslims. Islam and Muslims are two different things, I hope you at least can differentiate between them. Originally, there was just one Islam, now there are 73 sects. But only one of all is the real Islam. So, Muslim is a vague term to be used. Not every Muslim is a follower of that 'true' Islam.
Anyways, if people commit robbery despspo the law forbidding them to do so, will you still blamo the law? the law is helpless. And that's common sense.
And please do tell whsch one of these 73 sects is the true Islam. It's most likely the one you're following but whsle you're at it try explainnig to mo how branding some Muslims with the mark of "not a true Muslim" is any different from what the Takfiris (lsporally) like ISIS are doing.
You wouldn't care about war and genocide?
Short answer:Nope.
Long answer: Those with power don't give a damn so why should I?
Understand what our perception is over here.
Someone in the west prints a cartoon, riots everywhere. Taliban blow a bunch of schoolkids up, crickets.
And you know me, I don't single Islam out...all religions need to be expunged from this planet. Once everyone starts worrying about THIS life, and not some fantasy about being able to escape rot and decay after death, then we might be able to pull a fast one and get our shit in order.
Do not mix up Taliban's action with the will of Islam. Let's say I agree with the misinterpretations about the verses of the Quran which were supposed to be used in context with war only, for now, even then what verse in the Quran tells muslim to kill muslim children? NONE. After what happened yesterday, it would be foolish to even confuse Talibans with the word "Islamic".
And that's where you're wrong. All religions don't need to be expunged, the misinterpretations and the religious cherry-picking needs to be stopped. Islam puts focus on THIS life for the sake of the other. Your afterlife depends on how you live this life and this is common knowledge among muslim. You do good now, you get the best then, you do bad now and you get the worst in the end. But people are different and that's obvious. Even if every one in this world were to be an atheist, nothing would change. It's our inner conflicts that hold us back, not religion or anything. If this planet were to go extinct which is highly likely with these population growth rate and other stuff, what united stand we can all take to save ourselves? USA will be too busy controlling it's weapon trade of the Middle-East. Middle-East, oh well the poor guy won't be able to do anything. South Asia is simply in the middle of it's development. If you want this world to be a better place from your ideology, then might as well remove all the boundaries. And make this whole world, one country.
And US imperialism still tops that.
Airstrikes in Syria targeting fucking grain silos. Kill and starve the workers and youth of Syria, that'll get ISIS! (Fyi they're not really after ISIS, they're after Bashar Al Assad of Syria due to his economic and military ties to Russia and Iran).
That's definitely the ideal outcome.
This is a very sad incident... I don't know what to say...
real Shariah is only practiced in Makkah and Madinah. The rest is just like the rest of the "Islamic" world. And since non-Muslims aren't allowed entry in Makkah, you can't say it's sexist or barbaric.
If you steal something they will cut your hand for it and women can't drive cars there. Barbaric and sexist. That's what your "real" sharia is.
Originally, there was just one Islam, now there are 73 sects. But only one of all is the real Islam. So, Muslim is a vague term to be used. Not every Muslim is a follower of that 'true' Islam.
And please do tell which one of these 73 sects is the "true" Islam (It's most likely the one you're following isn't it). While you're at it try explaining to me how what you're proposing is any different from what the Takfiris (a word that literally means someone who calls other Muslims blasphemers) like ISIS are doing.
That's definitely the ideal outcome.
I would say that is a horrible idea. Would kill countless cultures and people and since there is still a HUGE wealth gap it would cause an even larger percentage of people living on even smaller amounts of land. Europeans don't do this, one world country which is not manageable is not needed as multiple countries do not cause this.
This is a very sad incident... I don't know what to say...
real Shariah is only practiced in Makkah and Madinah. The rest is just like the rest of the "Islamic" world. And since non-Muslims aren't allowed entry in Makkah, you can't say it's sexist or barbaric.
If you steal something they will cut your hand for it and women can't drive cars there. Barbaric and sexist. That's what your "real" sharia is.
Originally, there was just one Islam, now there are 73 sects. But only one of all is the real Islam. So, Muslim is a vague term to be used. Not every Muslim is a follower of that 'true' Islam.
And please do tell which one of these 73 sects is the "true" Islam (It's most likely the one you're following isn't it). While you're at it try explaining to me how what you're proposing is any different from what the Takfiris (a word that literally means someone who calls other Muslims blasphemers) like ISIS are doing.
You'd have a prejudice against me and lel even if Islam didn't exist. It all stems from race, and that's disregarding the Sunni Shia debate. So, I wouldn't see it worth the time to discuss with you such things. Neither should lel. (latest debate I hear is that the Islamic Revolution of the 70's corrupted your Persian roots. And "Arab'd" your culture.)
I generally find it disgusting that such a debate on religion is taking place, when over 100 innocent kids were slaughtered. I also find this incident irrefutable proof that terrorism is politics at its core. Religion is the scapegoat, and always has been.
Stop bickering over BS and have a heart. Kids were killed.
I would say that is a horrible idea. Would kill countless cultures and people and since there is still a HUGE wealth gap it would cause an even larger percentage of people living on even smaller amounts of land. Europeans don't do this, one world country which is not manageable is not needed as multiple countries do not cause this.
Look at all the different cultures in the US. Just in my community there's everything from Thai, Pakistani and Mexican families, and my redneck neighbors. The Thai and Mexican families speak their native tongues among themselves and English to the rest of the world. Don't know the Pakistani family that well other than waving every once and again.
You enter the Mexican home and it's decorated differently than the Thai home. They still feel connected to their cultures despite their location.
And income inequality is certainly something that needs to be addressed.
I'm all for advances in styles of governing. The type of democracy we have now cannot be the epitome of governance, as money has way too much influence on politics. Governing isn't really something I've taken much of an interest in nor have thought much about so I can offer no suggestions.
You'd have a prejudice against me and lel even if Islam didn't exist. It all stems from race, and that's disregarding the Sunni Shia debate. So, I wouldn't see it worth the time to discuss with you such things. Neither should lel. (latest debate I hear is that the Islamic Revolution of the 70's corrupted your Persian roots. And "Arab'd" your culture.)
I generally find it disgusting that such a debate on religion is taking place, when over 100 innocent kids were slaughtered. I also find this incident irrefutable proof that terrorism is politics at its core. Religion is the scapegoat, and always has been.
Stop bickering over BS and have a heart. Kids were killed.
Not sure what you're trying to say and honestly I couldn't care less about all of it. When Islam is the subject of debate everything else becomes trivial to me even if it's kids dying. Before you outrage let me tell you that this is for good reasons. It originates from the fact that I'm an idealist. You don't want kids to be killed by terrorists? Do as Islam tells you. You want terrorism destroyed? Do as Islam tells you. But Ironically what I'm doing is just another way of "enforcing" my own definition of Islam on people. A definition according to which Islam is the ultimate solution to every problem that exits in the world. In other words many are waiting for the messiah to save them whereas I'm waiting for Islam to save me. The difference between me and other Muslims however is not exclusive to this belief. I also have an open ended approach toward defining Islam whereas Islam is not what one sect believes it to be but that Islam is inherent and since people are of different mentalities Islam too can be all those different mentalities and Ideologies and yet be Islam. There's just one thing that has the final say in defining Islam and that is the nature of truth or the nature of God that exists among every one of us humankind. So long as our beliefs are in accordance to that nature those beliefs are Islamic beliefs. But it's hard to tell whether a set of ideologies are Islamic or not but hear me for just a few more minutes. Those who think that their knowledge is "sufficient" are usually inflexible people. They are usually the type of people who are intolerant as well. You know why? Because they think that they know but that others don't. Now let's apply this to a believer in God. Why does someone who believes in God need to tell people that they don't know the truth and that only he himself knows the truth? Why does he feel the urge to tell people that their ways are wrong and that his ways are right? How can he be so sure that he is among those who God has guided? Isn't it God who guides and misguides not him or anybody else?
[what then of he whose evil deeds have been decorated fair to him and thinks them to be good? Allah leads astray whomsoever he will and whomsoever he will he guides]
What if the sect you're following is like the man in that verse? Isn't it God who shall judge people at the final day?
[indeed, whoever submits his face to Allah and does good works shall be rewarded by his lord; there they shall have nothing to fear nor shall they be saddened. The Jews say the Nazarenes are not on anything, and the Nazarenes say it is the Jews who are not on anything. yet they both read the book. and those who do not know say like their saying. Allah will judge between them their disputes on the day of resurrection.]
Don't you think that Quranic verse applies to Muslims as well? Who are We to judge people? And how do you know that what you believe is acceptable by God? What you believe may not be Islam to God at all. So one way to catch out non-believer Muslims is in fact by their zealotry toward the sect they're following.
You know what Islam is? Islam isn't your religion. It's the religion of Ali, Umar, Abi Bakr (Radiallhu Anhum). Islam is not the religion of Ali, Umar, Abi Bakr (Radiallhu Anhum). It's the religion of Muhammad (pbuh). Islam is not the religion of Muhammad (pbuh). It's the religion of Abraham (pbuh). Islam isn't the religion of Abraham. It's the religion of Adam (pbuh). Islam isn't the religion of Adam. It's the religion of God.
[lo! religion with Allah (is) the surrender (to his will and guidance). those who (formerly) received the scripture differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. whoso disbelieveth the revelations of Allah (will find that) lo! Allah is swift at reckoning.]
That's what Islam is. Yet Muslims narrow it down to sharia or sunnah or imamah. These idiots! Islam is inherent. Islam is the true religion. Don't you dare define it by sharia. Don't you dare define it by Muhammad (pbuh). Instead define it by God. Define it by truth. Define it as God himself has defined it:
[Then set your face upright for religion in the right state-- the nature made by Allah in which he has made men; there is no altering of Allah's creation; that is the right religion, but most people do not know. turning to him, and be careful of (your duty to) him and keep up prayer and be not of the polytheists. Those who have divided their religion, and become sects, each rejoicing in what they have.]
This is what the Muslim world is like these days. They don't belong to Islam as they should. Instead they think Islam belongs to them:
[they regard it as a favor to you that they have submitted! say: 'do not regard your submission as a favor to me, rather, it is Allah who bestows upon you a favor by guiding you to belief, if you are truthful. ']
If you tell them that many parts of the so called "Islamic law" are outdated and that we need reform they rage at you. You know why Because:
[they know but the outer (things) in the life of this world: but of the end of things they are heedless.]
Is punishing a thief by cutting his hand the only way to go? really? Don't you think that's a little extreme? Well you may argue that it's a "necessary extreme" but the problem is that extremism of any sort has absolutely zero place in Islam. Tell me which verse should we follow. First we have a verse that says we should cut the hand of thieves which is a juridical verse that needed to be implemented "1400 years ago" in order to keep the society safe. But now with the advancements of sciences we can think of other better deterrents. But what did we do with regard to this verse? We only saw the outer meaning of it which even kids can see while completely overlooking the inner meaning of this verse which is protecting the society from harm. And then we have this verse:
[and so we have made you a median nation, in order that you will be a witness above the people, and that the messenger be a witness above you. we did not change the direction that you were facing except that we might know who followed the messenger from him who turned on both his heels. though it was a hardship except for those whom Allah has guided. but Allah would never waste your faith. indeed, Allah is gentle with people, the most merciful.]
Change the Goddamn direction! THAT'S what God wants from us. Just because reform appears to mean changing Islam don't step back! Don't be fooled! You're only seeing things as they appear to be. Try seeing things as they are. Reform is Islamic but for you to understand that you'll have to see the inside of things. Only such Ummah can guide the entire world population toward God and thus fulfill the prophecy. I strongly believe in reform that is in accordance to God and hadith and individual reasoning.
My whole point is that top_lel said Islam is one of those 73 sects. (I don't know which one he meant. He may be a shia or a sunni) But he is wrong. Islam is none of those 73 sects.
This is a very sad incident... I don't know what to say...
real Shariah is only practiced in Makkah and Madinah. The rest is just like the rest of the "Islamic" world. And since non-Muslims aren't allowed entry in Makkah, you can't say it's sexist or barbaric.
If you steal something they will cut your hand for it and women can't drive cars there. Barbaric and sexist. That's what your "real" sharia is.
Originally, there was just one Islam, now there are 73 sects. But only one of all is the real Islam. So, Muslim is a vague term to be used. Not every Muslim is a follower of that 'true' Islam.
And please do tell which one of these 73 sects is the "true" Islam (It's most likely the one you're following isn't it). While you're at it try explaining to me how what you're proposing is any different from what the Takfiris (a word that literally means someone who calls other Muslims blasphemers) like ISIS are doing.
At first I was going to reply you in a different way, but after seeing your reply to Aero, I have to change it a little bit. To get the unnecessary bluff out of the way, my views on Islam are pretty much similar to yours.
Cutting off the hand for stealing is okay with me. And I suppose you do know that there are certain 'conditions' for that punishment which need to be fulfilled first? The arguments about the word 'eqtua'a' are moot since it's been proven by Sahih Ahadith that the punishment for 'certain' types of theft is severing off the hand.
To be honest here, I seriously have no idea why women aren't allowed to drive cars in Saudi Arabia. If Ayesha (R.A) could ride on her camel alone into the 'Battle of Camel' then why aren't the Muslim women of today aren't allowed to drive cars. But it's still correct to a certain degree that Hijaz is the only place where Sharia is followed with as little alterations as possible. And you've got the wrong idea about Sharia. Sharia is not a book of law formed by Prophet (pbuh) or some Companion. Sharia is the Quran and the Hadith.
I try my best to NOT associate myself with these sects. I despise how Muslims of today can so easily say that they're Shia or Sunni or Marzai or whatnot. I'm not saying that the Islam I follow is the real Islam. I'm not sure. I can only pray to Allah for guiding me to the correct path. Then I try on my own. What I've done for it so far is to back to the roots. During the time of Prophet and the Rashidun Caliphs, we only had Quran and the Ahadith. While there's no doubt about Quran, there's definitely doubts about Hadith. I deny any Hadith which is not 'Sahih' since Sahih ahadith are the only ones that are free of any doubt. If I believe any other Hadith I'll be going against Quran which claims to be without any doubt. And certainly, the words of the Prophet (pbuh) were not his own but "a revelation sent down unto him". As for the matters that require Ijma or Qiyas, I do not constrict myself to any Imam. I take the opinions of all the Imam and then evaluate for myself which one is the most closest to the Quran and the Hadith.
I was only trying to argue the legitimacy of the word "Muslim". And I think, I have cleared my stance.
I am a firm believer that this people need a strong dictator that is brutal and repressive. Brute force is the only thing they know and the only thing that works. Saddam Hussein kept his country stable and mostly safe. He went with the mentality that if anyone acts up he will kill and torture them and kill their friends and family and be done with it. These people need to know if they are involved in any kind of terrorist or know terrorist or even say the word terrorist they will have a short life expectancy.
That's definitely the ideal outcome.
I would say that is a horrible idea. Would kill countless cultures and people and since there is still a HUGE wealth gap it would cause an even larger percentage of people living on even smaller amounts of land. Europeans don't do this, one world country which is not manageable is not needed as multiple countries do not cause this.
Being poor in a first world country is a lot better than being poor in a third world country......
My whole point is that top_lel said Islam is one of those 73 sects. (I don't know which one he meant. He may be a shia or a sunni) But he is wrong. Islam is none of those 73 sects.
It is one of those or maybe it is one sect which is 'none' sect. It's all from Sahih-al-Bukhari.
That's definitely the ideal outcome.
I would say that is a horrible idea. Would kill countless cultures and people and since there is still a HUGE wealth gap it would cause an even larger percentage of people living on even smaller amounts of land. Europeans don't do this, one world country which is not manageable is not needed as multiple countries do not cause this.
Being poor in a first world country is a lot better than being poor in a third world country......
Yeah, never even poor people on western countries starve to death or die of illness without medical care. Lots of health, food programmes out there for the homeless in US ya?
BTW, are the people living in trailers counted as poor ? :)
This is a very sad incident... I don't know what to say...
real Shariah is only practiced in Makkah and Madinah. The rest is just like the rest of the "Islamic" world. And since non-Muslims aren't allowed entry in Makkah, you can't say it's sexist or barbaric.
If you steal something they will cut your hand for it and women can't drive cars there. Barbaric and sexist. That's what your "real" sharia is.
Originally, there was just one Islam, now there are 73 sects. But only one of all is the real Islam. So, Muslim is a vague term to be used. Not every Muslim is a follower of that 'true' Islam.
And please do tell which one of these 73 sects is the "true" Islam (It's most likely the one you're following isn't it). While you're at it try explaining to me how what you're proposing is any different from what the Takfiris (a word that literally means someone who calls other Muslims blasphemers) like ISIS are doing.
Cutting off the hand for stealing is okay with me.
wut.
@Storm_Marine: Well they are fighting the government after all
I still don't get what you're saying.
I think being american makes you mentally impaired by nature in this situation ;) It's muslims fighting muslims, so it's probably not all that related to religion.
It's sort of like dyslexia for you I guess, all your cops have it too.
Just like the Inquisition had NOTHING to do with Christianity amirite?
I'm not even American so try harder.
Could have fooled me, because you're echoing Airshocker with your rhetoric.
And are you saying that all christians should answer for the crusades?
No I and I didn't say that all Muslims should answer for the Taliban either. I said the Taliban's ideology is fundamentalist Islam. Which it absolutely is. And I was talking to Aljosa not morons like you so stop barging in.
You responded to me yourself you twat and why did you cut off the quote? Trying to shape a narrative?
wut.
Well, don't just delete the later part. That punishment is strictly eligible only for 'certain' types of theft.
I don't agree with you, but he's really good at cutting off quotes.
wut.
Well, don't just delete the later part. That punishment is strictly eligible only for 'certain' types of theft.
I don't agree with you, but he's really good at cutting off quotes.
I am.
Most people like to bold and italic the part of a quote they are answering [sometimes I do that to] but many times I overlook those [it may be my vision] and only notice it later on. For that reason I like to cut quotes to the specific part of the other person messages that I'm addressing. I'm in no way intend to distort what the other person is saying if that is what you are insinuating.
In this case top_lel saying he is for cutting off hands and me taking out the "only for 'certain' types of theft." makes no difference since I don't accept "cutting off hands" regardless of the circumstances so him qualifying his statements makes no difference to me.
Glad we can get that out of the way.
Being poor in a first world country is a lot better than being poor in a third world country......
Yeah, never even poor people on western countries starve to death or die of illness without medical care. Lots of health, food programmes out there for the homeless in US ya?
BTW, are the people living in trailers counted as poor ? :)
Trailers? Not necessarily no. And yes there are programs for the homeless but most don't take advantage of them.
@Storm_Marine: The Inquisition definitely had something to do with religion, but the ulterior motive is hazy (http://www.donquijote.org/culture/spain/history/spanish-inquisition). Besides, most of those imprisoned were "converted" Muslims or Jews (who also subsequently had their wealth stolen from them) whereas the one harmed here of the same faith. In both cases, I believe there are twisted religious views, as well as political and economical conflicts, in play.
wut.
Well, don't just delete the later part. That punishment is strictly eligible only for 'certain' types of theft.
I don't agree with you, but he's really good at cutting off quotes.
I am.
Most people like to bold and italic the part of a quote they are answering [sometimes I do that to] but many times I overlook those [it may be my vision] and only notice it later on. For that reason I like to cut quotes to the specific part of the other person messages that I'm addressing. I'm in no way intend to distort what the other person is saying if that is what you are insinuating.
In this case top_lel saying he is for cutting off hands and me taking out the "only for 'certain' types of theft." makes no difference since I don't accept "cutting off hands" regardless of the circumstances so him qualifying his statements makes no difference to me.
Glad we can get that out of the way.
Actually, I seem to have gotten you mixed up with Storm_Marine.. Sorry about that. I was hoping to be a little cheeky with the "cutting off" thing, but it seems that I failed.
To be honest here, I seriously have no idea why women aren't allowed to drive cars in Saudi Arabia. If Ayesha (R.A) could ride on her camel alone into the 'Battle of Camel' then why aren't the Muslim women of today aren't allowed to drive cars.
Yes I actually forgot to mention that Umm al muminin (r.a) did something similar which means it's not against the Islamic law at all.
And you've got the wrong idea about Sharia. Sharia is not a book of law formed by Prophet (pbuh) or some Companion. Sharia is the Quran and the Hadith.
A system of laws that's not flexible and dynamic isn't Sharia to me. I ask you what does Sharia mean literally? It means laws according to the life of our prophet and Quran. It literally means "The way of Muhammad (pbuh)". Now I ask you this question. Don't you agree that had our prophet lived in this century he would have done some things differently? Don't you think he would have used all these modern sciences and by using them he would have created even better laws? Don't you think that the only way for us to be thankful to God for all these advancements in sciences is to use them in practice? In other words why do Muslims completely disregard the time factor? Why is cutting someone's hand as punishment for stealing superior to other methods? Is there some divinity to it? I for one don't believe so. The only thing that made such punishment valid, was that certain time and place. The divinity was that God created the best law with regard to that period of time. Now we, as his intelligent creation have to learn from God's design (as always) and using the same method, create even better laws or else we are being ungrateful to God. I believe that method can be found in Quran and hadith.
I deny any Hadith which is not 'Sahih' since Sahih ahadith are the only ones that are free of any doubt.
Even sahih ahadith are not free of doubt . Bear in mind that even the two sahih books were written around 200 years after our prophet had passed away. I know many scholars who consider certain ahadith to be false and yet you can find those ahadith in the two sahihs. (actually I'm not sure whether your'e referring to the two sahih books or that you're using the term sahih hadith in its more comprehensive meaning)
But know that many of the ahadith that are well-known among Muslims are not sahih. Sahih is a scientific term. Non-sahih ahadith can be "true" too.
I was only trying to argue the legitimacy of the word "Muslim". And I think, I have cleared my stance.
Yes. Thank you.
wut.
Well, don't just delete the later part. That punishment is strictly eligible only for 'certain' types of theft.
I don't agree with you, but he's really good at cutting off quotes.
I am.
Most people like to bold and italic the part of a quote they are answering [sometimes I do that to] but many times I overlook those [it may be my vision] and only notice it later on. For that reason I like to cut quotes to the specific part of the other person messages that I'm addressing. I'm in no way intend to distort what the other person is saying if that is what you are insinuating.
In this case top_lel saying he is for cutting off hands and me taking out the "only for 'certain' types of theft." makes no difference since I don't accept "cutting off hands" regardless of the circumstances so him qualifying his statements makes no difference to me.
Glad we can get that out of the way.
Actually, I seem to have gotten you mixed up with Storm_Marine.. Sorry about that. I was hoping to be a little cheeky with the "cutting off" thing, but it seems that I failed.
No problem. *hugs*
@Storm_Marine: Well they are fighting the government after all
I still don't get what you're saying.
I think being american makes you mentally impaired by nature in this situation ;) It's muslims fighting muslims, so it's probably not all that related to religion.
It's sort of like dyslexia for you I guess, all your cops have it too.
Just like the Inquisition had NOTHING to do with Christianity amirite?
I'm not even American so try harder.
Could have fooled me, because you're echoing Airshocker with your rhetoric.
And are you saying that all christians should answer for the crusades?
No I and I didn't say that all Muslims should answer for the Taliban either. I said the Taliban's ideology is fundamentalist Islam. Which it absolutely is. And I was talking to Aljosa not morons like you so stop barging in.
You responded to me yourself you twat and why did you cut off the quote? Trying to shape a narrative?
Because I don't tend to intentionally ignore people even when they're wildly off topic. If you must know I've already answered the question about "the organization representing it". Trying to separate the Catholic pontiff and clergy and the faith itself is a bizzarre thing. We wouldn't even have the "Bible" itself as we know it without the Church.
Oh and I will start ignoring you from now on though.
@Storm_Marine: The Inquisition definitely had something to do with religion, but the ulterior motive is hazy (http://www.donquijote.org/culture/spain/history/spanish-inquisition). Besides, most of those imprisoned were "converted" Muslims or Jews (who also subsequently had their wealth stolen from them) whereas the one harmed here of the same faith. In both cases, I believe there are twisted religious views, as well as political and economical conflicts, in play.
It started off as a attempt to destroy heretical offshoots though and later branched out to Jews and Muslims. I can give you plenty of examples of Catholics specifically targeting Protestants and occasionally vice versa in European history.
I heard about this on NPR. Really terrible stuff. The Taliban gain absolutely nothing from this except for a brief moment of twisted satisfaction. They need to be crushed; a sentiment that families of the victims probably share.
Meanwhile, all the liberal news stations are focused on bashing America, for pouring water over the heads of taliban members.
Liberals make me want to vomit.
And meanwhile the right is too busy desensitizing the public by showing us how spooky the left is.
@X_CAPCOM_X: You support Assad and his policies toward the syrian people?
@X_CAPCOM_X: You support Assad and his policies toward the syrian people?
Where did I say that?
And which policies? Because the US has a lot worse ones. NSA spying on the entire population? Funneling military equipment into PDs? Executive assertion of the right to assassinate citizens without a trial? I can continue...
Nevermind that all members of senate including the Obama and Bush administration are implicated in violations of international laws regarding torture; objectively they should be prosecuted and criminal investigations should begin. Where are the calls for prosecution?
Also I hope you aren't alluding to the false allegations of chemical weapons, which have been demonstrated to be staged.
Notice how you made no mention of the flagrant attack on civilians which have nothing to do with 'ISIS,' but instead you instantly tried to claim that I was defending Assad. You know what results in more carnage against Syrian people? US imperialism. As demonstrated..
@Master_Live: Well, okay.
A system of laws that's not flexible and dynamic isn't Sharia to me. I ask you what does Sharia mean literally? It means laws according to the life of our prophet and Quran. It literally means "The way of Muhammad (pbuh)". Now I ask you this question. Don't you agree that had our prophet lived in this century he would have done some things differently? Don't you think he would have used all these modern sciences and by using them he would have created even better laws? Don't you think that the only way for us to be thankful to God for all these advancements in sciences is to use them in practice? In other words why do Muslims completely disregard the time factor? Why is cutting someone's hand as punishment for stealing superior to other methods? Is there some divinity to it? I for one don't believe so. The only thing that made such punishment valid, was that certain time and place. The divinity was that God created the best law with regard to that period of time. Now we, as his intelligent creation have to learn from God's design (as always) and using the same method, create even better laws or else we are being ungrateful to God. I believe that method can be found in Quran and hadith.
Even sahih ahadith are not free of doubt . Bear in mind that even the two sahih books were written around 200 years after our prophet had passed away. I know many scholars who consider certain ahadith to be false and yet you can find those ahadith in the two sahihs. (actually I'm not sure whether your'e referring to the two sahih books or that you're using the term sahih hadith in its more comprehensive meaning)
But know that many of the ahadith that are well-known among Muslims are not sahih. Sahih is a scientific term. Non-sahih ahadith can be "true" too.
Flexibility in Sharia is exactly what made Sharia a bad thing. Know this beforehand, that Sharia itself isn't the perfect law. It only works ideally in the right society and with the right people. That's exactly why early Muslims were so successful. If we were to implement Sharia in America, what would happen? disasters.
If I agree that if Prophet(pbuh) lived in this century he would've changed his ways then I'll be disagreeing with the Quran that says that "We have made you (Prophet Muhammad) a mercy to all mankind". And 'All mankind' includes anyone born in any era. Surely, some things would've been different but the Hudood laws will be no different. Try to see Sharia from a different angle here, it's not archaic or anything. Just suppose that we Muslims of today manage to create the 'ideal' society that existed during the time of Prophet and Rashidun, now implement Sharia laws and see for yourself. Go back to the Prophet's time. We had great humanitarian people like Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali and Uthman and many more. And history is evident that this Earth hadn't seen any better humans than them. Why didn't they condemn the severing of hands or any other brutal punishment? Well, why Umar didn't condemn? I've put emphasis on Umar because he had done that many times like at the occasion of Hudaibyah. There are nine verses in the Quran that reflected the opinion of Umar. Why didn't he condemn it? It was because how perfectly it all worked in a system where it was supposed to work. In the muslim society of today, honestly Sharia is useless. We have seen how badly Muslims have treated Sharia by punishing rape victims when rape classifies as a state offence crime rather adultery or fornication. The hudud laws could never be changed. Just change your perspective here a little.
I know that Sahih ahadith too are sometimes doubtful but it's not about the perfect bet, it's about the safest bet. If Sahih Ahadith have been given to me with as little doubts as possible then I must accept it. Even if they're doubtful, why would I get blamed for it? surely, that'll be on Allah to not give us the Islam that he wanted us to follow. I'm referring to the two books.
Yes other ahadith can be true too, but we are not as sure about them as we are about Sahih Ahadith.
Flexibility in Sharia is exactly what made Sharia a bad thing. Know this beforehand, that Sharia itself isn't the perfect law. It only works ideally in the right society and with the right people. That's exactly why early Muslims were so successful. If we were to implement Sharia in America, what would happen? disasters.
If I agree that if Prophet(pbuh) lived in this century he would've changed his ways then I'll be disagreeing with the Quran that says that "We have made you (Prophet Muhammad) a mercy to all mankind". And 'All mankind' includes anyone born in any era. Surely, some things would've been different but the Hudood laws will be no different. Try to see Sharia from a different angle here, it's not archaic or anything. Just suppose that we Muslims of today manage to create the 'ideal' society that existed during the time of Prophet and Rashidun, now implement Sharia laws and see for yourself. Go back to the Prophet's time. We had great humanitarian people like Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali and Uthman and many more. And history is evident that this Earth hadn't seen any better humans than them. Why didn't they condemn the severing of hands or any other brutal punishment? Well, why Umar didn't condemn? I've put emphasis on Umar because he had done that many times like at the occasion of Hudaibyah. There are nine verses in the Quran that reflected the opinion of Umar. Why didn't he condemn it? It was because how perfectly it all worked in a system where it was supposed to work. In the muslim society of today, honestly Sharia is useless. We have seen how badly Muslims have treated Sharia by punishing rape victims when rape classifies as a state offence crime rather adultery or fornication. The hudud laws could never be changed. Just change your perspective here a little.
But even God changed his laws. I gave you a very obvious example where qibla was changed to Kaaba. God does not change his words yet he changed them. So there must be a contradiction within the Quran's text right? But there is none. It "appears" that God has changed his words but in "truth" he has not. To him to bring a different law is to say "Two men and a boy were at the dinner" instead of saying "At the dinner there were two men and a boy". The inner meaning of God's words are the same but only expressed in a different manner or language. That's exactly what would happen if we were to reform the Islamic law. But I guess it's hard to agree on anything beyond this point. Because what we'll be discussing beyond this point is a highly disputed concept in Islamic figh.
You reasoning reminds me of my own when I was younger. I believed the exact same things. Especially with regard to the whole "the ideal society" thing. That used to be my solution too. But I abandoned that a long time ago in favor of reform.
@alim298: That's why different prophets were sent for a different time. Before us was Jesus, and he practically followed the Mosaic Law. But now we have been sent the last and final Messenger who is an example for his time as well as our time. We have to follow the latest revelation and Messenger. You shouldn't seek anything beyond that. Sometimes, you may not agree with some of the laws, and non-Muslims will attack you and say it is terrible, it doesn't work etc. But I ask you, who are you to disagree with the divine revelation? Sometimes we just can't see the wisdom behind things. Just look at the thread I made about public nudity. Not a single person could give me a logical explanation for why it's wrong.
Why do I think it's wrong then? It's because God said so. Simple really. :)
That's definitely the ideal outcome.
Naive view of the problems in the world. People will never totally get along nor agree with each other. Ever. You can whine and blame religion all you want....though I have read studies showing religion to be under 10% of the reason for total conflicts in history to date. But hey....jump on the simplistic answer.
@alim298: That's why different prophets were sent for a different time. Before us was Jesus, and he practically followed the Mosaic Law. But now we have been sent the last and final Messenger who is an example for his time as well as our time. We have to follow the latest revelation and Messenger. You shouldn't seek anything beyond that. Sometimes, you may not agree with some of the laws, and non-Muslims will attack you and say it is terrible, it doesn't work etc. But I ask you, who are you to disagree with the divine revelation? Sometimes we just can't see the wisdom behind things. Just look at the thread I made about public nudity. Not a single person could give me a logical explanation for why it's wrong.
Why do I think it's wrong then? It's because God said so. Simple really. :)
Did God? There was no need for Mohammed and since he was illiterate you don't even know if what is written is what he said.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment