Savannahleaf

It's not a man whose authority I believe in but a man whose authority has been verified officially. Nor was it about killing or beating a woman - it was about flogging and imprisonment. Nor would I be told to do so.

But it is.

You mean apart for China's hatred for Muslims? You're strongly underestimating Afghanistan and, as is typical, thinking it's all about the bigger countries. "if there's no China or Russia or US - how will they go on?"

I didn't say I don't judge. Of course I do - everyone does. It's one of the consequences of having a mind. I said I am not a judge. How did you derive that that's what it means, exactly? Anyone can decide to do anything - is that scary to you? Only an Islamic judge can make such a judgment and a person making their own "interpretations" is not qualified to be a judge. A person who is qualified to do something legally is a legitimate person do that. That's not a matter of opinion. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimate Against the rules of which society? Why should something follow the rules of the society? Is the society perfect?

No. I'm saying it may be possible in sharia, but I'm not sure and I don't know about the details. If qualified scholars say it is permissable then I accept that. I haven't seen any specific mentions of it so far. I didn't quote anything. I used my own words and was very clear. Yes, but I was referring to twelver shi'ism and the leader of Iran to be specific, for the purposes of not making a generalisation - and yet, here you are insisting I made one. With all your "knowledge" about Islam, surely you know we believe in the revelation sent to Moses and Jesus as well, peace be upon them. I said there are a lot of people with different religions. I didn't say the majority have a different religion. "After the death of Khomeini in June 1989 the Assembly of Experts (a council of clerics) chose Ali Khamenei to be the new Supreme Leader, even though he had not achieved the required rank among Shia clerics that the constitution stipulated - marja-e taqlid (source of emulation) or grand ayatollah." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29115464 When he came to power, most Iranians were probably twelvers, however, they didn't choose him. Again you're making it as if I'd said the majority consider him a blasphemer, while I didn't. I also don't think blasphemy is the only issue. It was only one of the many that came to my mind. How would Iranians get rid of him - even if they wanted to? Vote about it?

English is possibly the easiest language there is by its grammar. That's why it's easy. Its grammar is extremely simple. French grammar is complicated.

I'm not a judge or a scholar, but there is something called a ta'zir punishment which could possibly be applied - which can be, among others, imprisonment or flogging. Flogging is usually, if not always, public. It is supposed to be humiliating. I didn't say the Iranians religion is blasphemy. There are a lot of people there with different religions. I was referring to the leader of Iran Ali Khamenei. The refutations of the twelver shi'ism is public. It's not a secret.

I don't know of any of that being true. It's not hateful that it is a different religion. The religion in itself is hateful because it is invented, it is blasphemy. It is more similar to Christianity or paganism than Islam.

They're not birds of a feather. The leader of Iran has a religion different from Islam. It is hateful to any knowledgeable Muslim.

I don't know what you're talking about. do you have some particular citation in mind? I know Iran funds terrorism, but they're shiites. Why would they support a terrorist group that is not Shiite?

That's of course not true. They're normal human beings at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong tools to make a good life for themselves. Sure, you can blame them all individually - or you can be constructive and realize that societies make terrorists.

No, islam is a religion and religions don't change. People either practice it correctly or incorrectly. They do some and not others - assuming they practice it to begin with. They are from the Deobandi school which was established to fight against the negative western influence on Muslims.

That's not the reason you have to wear pants. The reason is that your society considers nudity to be inappropriate. And such people do exist. That's nonsense - pants are forced on those who don't wear them in public. "Nudity 174 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, (a) is nude in a public place, or (b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. Marginal note:Nude (2) For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order." https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-40.html#h-118604 See the bold at the end? That's exactly what Islamic countries do, too.

So it was false. They have accepted Taliban. The above is not the reason though, it's economy.

Pray tell, what made you think "even a place like Iran" was going to be friends with the Taliban?

I'm sure you'll do business with China regardless of who they ally with and if Taliban were left to power for decades, you and everyone else would definitely recognize it.

Yes, much of which can't be used there. Maybe they should have left it home?

Are pants a symbol of oppression too - because you can certainly go to prison if you refuse to wear them?

I'll help you: it's not a symbol of oppression - it's clothing that covers the body, used in order to obey the creator of everything that exists because He commanded women to cover themselves thus. You see some women take some of their clothing off when their environment changes. This is because they do not wear it in order to obey their creator - or perhaps they use to do so, but later their faith became weak. Those women who keep their clothing no matter where they go, no matter who is around them or with them, no matter who likes it or dislikes it and no matter what the weather is like - those do it for the sake of Allah.

It isn't a small number of women at all, but I know why you can't admit that.

That's disgusting. "yes, we want to help the women - but only if we can profit off them." Now Islam has better ethics than you. You don't have any sympathy for the much much larger number of men dying and being abused? Nothing? Why would you want women whom you refer to as monkeys?

They did make a lot of promises.

Afghans are not Arab though.

I guess you should have told that to the Americans before they got a notorious Taliban leader out of a Pakistani prison. That took them years to achieve.

The Canadian and American type of democracy. Or is there some other type you prefer? Whatever someone like you prefers is probably at odds with Islam.