Marocc
-
Posts
1,121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Marocc
-
-
1 hour ago, dialamah said:
I don't agree that you can simply draw a line between Islam and the choices made by authorities imposing Sharia law, whether government or clerics. They are the representatives and interpreters of Islam for billions of people world wide, Muslim and non-Muslim. If death for apostasy or homosexuality is "not" Islamic, then Muslims should object vehemently to it being included as part of Sharia wherever it is. Do they? If they do not, or if they excuse its "wrongness" because Islam is perfect and Sharia administered by people is not, then they too misrepresent Islam. If these things are Islamic and accurately represented in Sharia, then those who believe Islam promotes brutal punishment are not wrong.
Either Sharia represents Islam accurately or it does not. If it does not, then Muslims should not be following it, imo.
I understand that it's not really Islam's concern if we non-Muslims don't "get it". And that may have worked if Muslims were not dispersing around the world in the shadow of extremist attacks in Western countries. I know there are efforts around the world to change the perception of Islam as stuck in the 14th century, remaining backward and ignorant. If that is to be successful, if Muslims want to change that perception, they and their leaders will have to do more than say "Islam is perfect, Sharia law isn't but we support it because the Quran and Hadiths say stuff." Without that extra effort, too many Muslim people in Western countries will feel the pain of hatred and persecution that they do not deserve, imo.
Drawing the line is easier than not drawing the line IF one studies Islam. The Quran and the Hadith and the Sunnah and history need to be studied carefully. If you haven't studied them it's understandable you don't see the line, but it isn't understandable you want to decide what befits the law and what doesn't.
The Muslim world is full of Muslims who oppose the sharia law as prescribed by their governments. But this by most part is not because they want to do away with Sharia and use your laws instead. No. They just want to do away with things they believe do not belong to Islam. And in those countries they have other laws in use but just Sharia. So before you criticise a specific country's law and call it Sharia you have to check what else it consists of.
Governments and clerics do not interpret "Islam". There is nothing to interpret. Muslims follow the Quran and the prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). There are not many ways to interpret the Quran, though many say so. The interpretation is either right or wrong. It is an individual Muslim's duty to find the information they need or to try their best. So if a Muslim is wrongly guided because of a cleric, he is responsible for it himself as there are many highly respected Islamic scholars in the world. The main idea is that if a teaching - no matter who it comes from - is controversial to the Qur'an or the Prophet's (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) teachings, which are available for all to read, it is to be rejected.
In Islam religion cannot be forced on anyone. The Muslims who believe know that what they follow is the only right religion and know that there can be no fault in it. But it is not up to them to make people believe so. If all the people in the world knew what Islam is, everyone would be Muslim. But that is not the way it is, nor is it the way it will ever be - as Allah tells us this in the Quran. The Muslims will always be persecuted.
-
10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
I do. But I wouldn't anyway.
If you're going to be an absolutist and hold that a person has the right to choose whether or not to cross the road, and whether or not to burn that blasphemer, then there's not much I can say. A person has to know right from wrong to start with.
You didn't misunderstand me.
Well there isn't any country in the world as far as I know, that doesn't allow women to drive. Maybe you have other reasons then..
-
7 minutes ago, dialamah said:
I think the distinction you are trying to make between Islam itself and man-made Sharia law fails when supporters of Sharia law point to the teachings of the Quran and hadiths as justification. But it's also true that there is widespread misunderstanding of Sharia law among non-Muslims, especially its variability and who is subject to it.
Executions for apostasy, blasphemy, homosexuality, stoning for adultery etc, or limb removals for stealing in some Muslim majority countries. They do happen, albeit probably not as often as Western media might have us believe.
The distinction doesn't fail just because someone points at the hadiths and the Quran. They must be interpreted correctly and the cases judged justly.
The distinction remains. And is particularly important to remember with your last paragraph.
-
5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
Ah. So it's okay then? I live in a country that won't let me drink and drive, so I can't complain about a country that won't allow homosexuals to live.
Do you live in a country that won't let you drink or drive?
you misunderstood me probably. I mean sociologically speaking, scientifically such a thing where a person is not affected by society does not exist.
Or maybe I misunderstood you?
-
1 minute ago, dialamah said:
Isn't that kind of the issue though? Sharia derives from Islam and some versions of Sharia do call for some pretty brutal punishments. I get that in some cases, these may be more symbolic than real and rarely, if ever, carried out - but in other cases those punishments are all too real.
No. Sharia is man made. Islam is the religion given to mankind. People apply Sharia, and have always applied as they see fit. But while Islam is perfect, man is not. Sharia is not perfect. And sharia can be modified within the limits of Islam. Islam cannot be modified at all.
What punishment are 'all too real'?
-
Just now, bcsapper said:
Anything that dictates behaviour in anyone but themselves as individuals. By a week Tuesday!
That phenomenon doesn't exist in human societies.
-
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
1) That's the thing about Islam. It's bad in a big way. Entire countries run by religious law. Death to blasphemers, homosexuals, apostates, on the books. Utterly insane! A few folks planning a dozen strong march under a confederate flag is worthy of note on an individual basis, but it's just not the same thing. And very few people come to their defense. With Islam, it seems the people who are willing to forget the very issues they care about most are everywhere. It makes threads interesting and fun.
2) Not change their culture. Change what they do. Their culture will change by itself then. Do you think white supremacist have an excuse by dint of their culture?
I already explained to you the position of Islam on those death penalties. You're still insinuating they make Islam "bad in a big way".
Sharia comes out of Islam - not the other way around.
what do you want them to change?
religion?
culture?
what they do? What is it that they do? Besides for living their lives minding their own business..
-
8 hours ago, OftenWrong said:
Iran is accused of sponsoring terrorist groups. Nation invasion is old-school war.
Also I think the main issue with the ME is entirely a chess-board for superpowers to play around in, and ME countries are caught in the middle. The US might never invade Iran but we all know what the meddling is all about. Any US aggression toward Iran is a veiled attempt at casting hurt on China and the USSR.
The main issue in the Middle East is the cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:But the Ayatollah is above the president. There is no politics in Islam, except Islam.
That is completely false.
ayatollah is only one authority for the Shias. Shias are only 10% of Muslims. Part of the other 90% don't even consider Shias as Muslims.
-
1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:
No singular pope, but a cabal of like-minded men. For Shiites, it is the Ayatollah.
They're not like-minded.
Islam doesn't need a reform and terrorism is not the problem of real religious leaders.
Islamic countries are doing a lot to prevent terrorism - only, some of them have got their own terrorist organizations; like Iran has Hezbollah. They condemn and act against terrorism that doesn't suit their interests.
Changing this wouldn't be a change "from within Islam" or from Muslims. It would be a political change with no effect to Islam.
-
Just now, GostHacked said:
DO tell how many nations Iran has invaded over the past 20 years compared to the number of nations the USA has taken down during the same time frame.
Are you bragging for USA?
Do you know how much those wars cost USA and that the debt is now well over 20 trillion?
-
4 minutes ago, GostHacked said:
The benefit they have by NOT attacking is to not have their nation annihilated by the USA. Which the USA is simply looking for any reason to blow Iran up. Dragging down the whole M.E into more of a quagmire which allows certain members to say ' look islam is bad' while completely ignoring the external factors that contribute to this problem.
USA can't really do anything. And they won't. Except by isolating Ira economically but that's been going on for some time. Besides the problem with Iran is not an occasional provocation.
-
2 minutes ago, GostHacked said:
What kind of logic is this? So because Iran did NOT attack the tankers they will benefit from it?
I didn't say they did not.
yes, they can. They're wicked. They'll make the best of anything to make others look bad and to make Iran look innocent and responsible.
-
47 minutes ago, GostHacked said:
Can you explain what you are trying to say here??
That they can gain something from what happened whether they did it or not.
-
1 minute ago, GostHacked said:
Iran has NOTHING to gain by blowing up oil tankers.
Yes they do. They like to be blamed for things for which there is no evidence, so they can note down another time they were "blamed for nothing" .
-
9 hours ago, bcsapper said:
There is a punishment for sex outside of marriage too? It gets worse. What is it?
Flogging and stoning are often in the laws of Muslim countries. It is a deterrent, the required proof is almost impossible to provide.
7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:It's fine to talk about what people believe in and say they have misinterpreted the religious texts according to their own ends and means. They can be dismissed as apostates.
What I find harder to dismiss is what religious leaders of Islam themselves are saying. These are the shepherds who teach common folk what the obscure words in the holy books actually mean, and how it should be interpreted in a modern context. What are the Ayatollahs and the majority of Imams saying? What is their message to the people? Harsh intolerance pervades Islamic belief, both in the book (as it does in other old books) and in the streets. And it comes from the top level of religious leadership, with good agreement among a majority of theologians. All males, of course. To me it's the misogyny and over-arching patriarchy that is the most problematic.
Religious leaders of Islam say a lot of different things. There's nothing obscure about the Quran. Nor is it intolerant.
The problem is not so much that people think all Muslims are what they think Islam is, but that they don't know what Islam is so they think what some Muslims are is what Islam is.
-
8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
It's called a phobia by those who don't want to admit the criticism is legitimate.
I think they do. The recent case of Asia Bibi comes to mind. She was acquitted of blasphemy (not found guilty but not killed) and still the crowds wanted her blood.
I'm pretty sure there are quite a few countries with the death penalty for homosexuality, too. A cursory Google search comes up with this.
As of 2019, the following jurisdictions, all of which have sharia-based criminal laws, prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality:
-
Afghanistan. The Afghanistan Penal Code does not refer to homosexuality explicitly, but provides for prosecuting it under the sharia category of zina (illicit sexual intercourse), which according to some traditional Islamic legal schools may entail the hadd (sharia-prescribed) punishment of stoning, when strict evidential requirements are met. The Hanafi school, prevalent in Afghanistan, does not regard homosexual acts as a hadd crime, although Afghan judges may potentially apply the death penalty for a number of reasons. No known death sentences for homosexuality have been passed since the end of Taliban rule in 2001.[1][2] -
Brunei's Sharia Penal Code, implemented in stages since 2014, prescribes death by stoning as punishment for sex between men.[3] This applies to Muslims, and non-Muslims including those on Brunei ships and aircraft and those in transit.[citation needed] -
Iran.[4] Homosexual intercourse is declared a capital offense in Iran's Islamic Penal Code, enacted in 1991. Though the grounds for execution in Iran are difficult to track, there is evidence that several people were hanged for homosexual behavior in 2005-2006 and in 2016, in some cases on dubious charges of rape.[5][6] -
Mauritania.[4] According to a 1984 law, Muslim men can be stoned for engaging in homosexual sex, though no executions have occurred so far.[7] -
Nigeria, where several northern states have adopted sharia-based criminal laws.[4] -
Pakistan, where the death penalty for homosexual acts is technically permitted by the law, but not applied in practice.[4] -
Qatar, applicable only to Muslims, for extramarital sex regardless of the gender of the participants. There is no evidence that the death penalty has been applied for consensual same-sex relations taking place between adults and in private.[4] -
Saudi Arabia, which does not have codified criminal laws.[4] According to the country's interpretation of sharia, a married man who commits sodomy, or a non-Muslim who engages in sodomy with a Muslim, can be stoned to death.[7] There were unconfirmed reports that two cross-dressing Pakistani nationals were killed by Saudi authorities in 2017, which Saudi officials have denied.[4] -
Somalia (
Jubaland), where Islamic courts have imposed sharia-based death penalties in some southern regions.[4][7] -
Sudan, for a third conviction[4] -
Yemen.[4] According to a 1994 law, married men can be sentenced to death by stoning for engaging in homosexual intercourse.[7]
The death penalty for homosexuality is not inherently Islamic. It's been made up later because the people didn't know what to do about homosexuals seeing as there is a punishment for sex outside of marriage. Sex between men could not be left outside of this.
The requirements for the punishment to be fulfilled - if the judges even want it to be fulfilled - are that four reliable Muslim men see the act of penetration and witness against the perpetrators.
-
-
57 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
I have. Many times.You insist Islam is just the same as any other religion when evidence it is much worse is apparent everywhere. I was giving you the opportunity to not bother.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Christians do not practice their religion. This doesn't make Christianity so and so - it makes the Christians non-practicing Christians. In other words, you cannot compare religions in such a way and get accurate results.
-
On 6/18/2019 at 2:34 AM, bcsapper said:
Islam needs no help to look bad. That's part of the problem with the left's view (except me). They have blinkers (as with Argus's most recent cartoon) and therefore have to describe legitimate criticism of Islam as Islamophobia because to not do so is to acknowledge it, and they cannot do that. For some reason they are afraid.
It's called a phobia because it isn't legitimate. It's exaggerated and ignorant. When a person becomes a fanatic without even knowing what for they are as though suffering from a phobia.
22 hours ago, bcsapper said:That's only because you think legitimate criticism of Islam , a despicable religion that advocates the death sentence for apostasy, blasphemy and homosexuality, is ignorant. Calling a spade a spade is honesty, not ignorance.
Islam doesn't have a death sentence for any of those things. They come from other sources and mostly aren't applied even if the state does have such a ruling.
This week in Islam
in Religion & Politics
Posted
Ayaan Hirsi Ali became an apostate long ago and she knows nothing about Islam. Every other 'fact' of hers is an outright lie that only non-Muslims can be ignorant enough to believe.
FGM is prohibited in Islam.