cloudybay Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 What a set of knuckle draggers sheffield people must be eh? From Sheff are we, cloudybay? Actually, no. Care to address my original point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tab1 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 So Mauritania isn't also known as the 'Islamic Republic of Mauritania' then?I have to concede that because Mauritania is also known as the Islamic republic of Mauritania, then Islam must be to blame for anything and everything bad that happens in that country, I am so embarrassed at not having made the connection that it must be Islam that made those people mistreat their fellow human beings. BNP is the way forward with their equal rights for all and no sign of any prejudice, and Muslims have a lot to learn to be as civilised as the BNP knuckle draggers. The Muslims who don't go in for slavery elsewhere in the world can't be proper Muslims then because of course you can prove it is Islam teaches the Muslims to enslave their fellow human beings. I bow to your superior knowledge of Islam than any Muslim alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 / quicker its still based on traditions going back 100s of years and lets face it is still rather racist and sexist This could be a description of Islam with the exception of the 100 years bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 No such law in Islam. How difficult is that statement for you to swallow? That statement is absolutely impossible to swallow when there is so much evidence to contradict it. The laws made, ascribed by you to Islam, were actually made by the state of Islam, just as our parliament's laws cannot and should be described as Christian laws but laws of Britain. Your assertion of my back pedalling furiously is laughable when it's you Plek who has a mental block on distinguishing between Islamic state and Islam. The laws I've mentioned aren't 'ascribed by [me] to Islam' they are ascribed to Islam by the people who introduced them according to their understanding of Islam and enforce them according to their understanding of Islam. Are those true believing Islamist fanatics in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi, Nigeria, Iran... all lying when they proudly proclaim that they do what they do because of Islam? Don't let me get away with it indeed I am right here when you can prove it is Islam that is at fault and not people making up various rules to suite their own agenda, but we are a long way from that yet. There may well be various laws made in support of Islam that you may Google up, but there is no dictat from Islam as requiring those laws. Clerics in majority of the majority followers of Islam (Sunnis) have no power to make laws but simply preach, and interpret scriptures. They would advise on personal dispute situations but without the authority of the state have no mandate to impose law their laws on anyone. Those that overstep the mark and try and impose a state like system of their own have come up against authority and conflict such as what is happening in Pakistan. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/08/pakistan-offensive-swat-valley When did you become the one true authority on what is an isn't Islam and what can and can't be done in the name of Islam? Just because you might disagree with Islamists understanding of Islam but that doesn't magically mean they don't do what they do because of Islam. You implied the laws of apostasy still applied today and I disagreed, and pointed out your error. Now you are thrashing about with all sorts of extra diversions to save face. I didn't imply "the laws of apostasy still applied today" I flatly stated that they were and provided evidence from Amnesty International to substantiate my claim. The fact that you are studiously ignoring those Amnesty documents doesn't magically make them or the cases they are based upon disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tab1 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 That statement is absolutely impossible to swallow when there is so much evidence to contradict it. The laws I've mentioned aren't 'ascribed by [me] to Islam' they are ascribed to Islam by the people who introduced them according to their understanding of Islam and enforce them according to their understanding of Islam. Are those true believing Islamist fanatics in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi, Nigeria, Iran... all lying when they proudly proclaim that they do what they do because of Islam? When did you become the one true authority on what is an isn't Islam and what can and can't be done in the name of Islam? Just because you might disagree with Islamists understanding of Islam but that doesn't magically mean they don't do what they do because of Islam. I didn't imply "the laws of apostasy still applied today" I flatly stated that they were and provided evidence from Amnesty International to substantiate my claim. The fact that you are studiously ignoring those Amnesty documents doesn't magically make them or the cases they are based upon disappear. Quite simply Plek, I regard a law as relevant in discussion if it is enforceable by some authority today. The state introduced the laws and they were indeed inspired or based on Islamic teachings from the Qur'an and may even have taken Hadith into account. The law is pointless if doesn't apply without an enforcing authority. The Afghanistan issue or others you mention are groups of people such as extremist Taliban and such like who wish to set up a state that is modelled on the Caliphate Islamic state. They have no authority over any Muslims other than the political area they control, and their expansion is being challenged by other Muslims such as the conflict in Pakistan. I find it disingenuous to call them true believing Islamists when the majority opposing them is ignored as a irrelevance. The extremists don't represent the whole of the Muslim world and to base judgement of all Muslims on these fanatics in wrong and unfair. I have never said the trouble makers don't exist and I along with majority of the Muslims oppose their pipe dream of a Caliphate style of an Islamic state where they appoint themselves as the head of such a state. We differ only in the view that I don’t blame Islam for it but those people who do wrong. It all comes back to political control where the resentment sewn by invasions and external meddling has lead to radicalisation of a population determined to fight the invaders. The unifying call for them is that they are being attacked because they are Muslims, and the American trigger happy attitude has lead to confirming just that. The problem therefore isn't what Islam is teaching them but what life experience of loved ones being blown to bits by outsiders is teaching them. That is simple unadulterated hate of the perpetrators of their misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloudybay Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I have to concede that because Mauritania is also known as the Islamic republic of Mauritania, then Islam must be to blame for anything and everything bad that happens in that country, Blame them Fraggles...............http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aky72-gyLLI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Quite simply Plek, I regard a law as relevant in discussion if it is enforceable by some authority today. The state introduced the laws and they were indeed inspired or based on Islamic teachings from the Qur'an and may even have taken Hadith into account. The law is pointless if doesn't apply without an enforcing authority.What a load of ****e, tell that to all the victims of vigilante honour killings, to them the law definately applpies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 The Afghanistan issue or others you mention are groups of people such as extremist Taliban and such like who wish to set up a state that is modelled on the Caliphate Islamic state. They have no authority over any Muslims other than the political area they control, and their expansion is being challenged by other Muslims such as the conflict in Pakistan. I find it disingenuous to call them true believing Islamists when the majority opposing them is ignored as a irrelevance. The extremists don't represent the whole of the Muslim world and to base judgement of all Muslims on these fanatics in wrong and unfair. You're all just as 'true' as each other to me, who are you to say that their interpretation of Islam is wrong and yours isn't? The Afghanistan issue or others you mention are groups of people such as extremist Taliban and such like who wish to set up a state that is modelled on the Caliphate Islamic state. They have no authority over any Muslims other than the political area they control, and their expansion is being challenged by other Muslims such as the conflict in Pakistan. I find it disingenuous to call them true believing Islamists when the majority opposing them is ignored as a irrelevance.A. Because they really are 'true' believers, just like you, and just like Grahame, they really do believe what they believe. Also, according to a poll conducted by the Guardian approximately half of British muslims think that in some situations, killing someone in the name of religion is justified: That's a scary stat to me. And it it not a viewpoint held by a fringe minority, it is held by just under half of British Muslims, very much a mainstream opinion within Islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 It all comes back to political control where the resentment sewn by invasions and external meddling has lead to radicalisation of a population determined to fight the invaders. The unifying call for them is that they are being attacked because they are Muslims, and the American trigger happy attitude has lead to confirming just that. The problem therefore isn't what Islam is teaching them but what life experience of loved ones being blown to bits by outsiders is teaching them. That is simple unadulterated hate of the perpetrators of their misery.No you're wrong the problem is both of those things. They are being taught interpretations of Islam (which may or may not be true, and whose similarity to what you understand as islam is irrelevant) which are horrific and encourage horrific violence against civilians as well as suicide (martrydom). I do not believe for a single second that people would blow themselves up with anywhere near the frequency if the peoples of the middle east were atheists, or bhuddists, etc. There would still be opposition to American imperialism for sure, and justified opposition. However there wouldn't be 9/11, there wouldn't be suicide bombers taking out grocery shops in Basra, these things require Islam (albeit not in the way you understand it, but who are you to say you're understanding is true? The suicide bomber's interpretation has the same validity as yours) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 No you're wrong the problem is both of those things. They are being taught interpretations of Islam (which may or may not be true, and whose similarity to what you understand as islam is irrelevant) which are horrific and encourage horrific violence against civilians as well as suicide (martrydom). I do not believe for a single second that people would blow themselves up with anywhere near the frequency if the peoples of the middle east were atheists, or bhuddists, etc. There would still be opposition to American imperialism for sure, and justified opposition. However there wouldn't be 9/11, there wouldn't be suicide bombers taking out grocery shops in Basra, these things require Islam (albeit not in the way you understand it, but who are you to say you're understanding is true? The suicide bomber's interpretation has the same validity as yours) Not quite. (my bold) Suicide, and suicide bombing is expressly forbidden in Islam, so is taking the lives of non-legitimate targets, and non-legitimate targets in a time of war, (eg the elderly, women and children) therefore their actions are directly contradicting the scriptures. As I have argued before:- These crackpot coward teachers who teach these gullible youths that Jannath (Paradise) awaits them, and their "72 virgins" should surely be "leading from the front", and pushing their way forward, in order to destroy themselves, rather than shoving these kids in front, and leading from the back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.